f85Gx 


£5 

Q_ 

•^ 

.5 

/? 

1c 

3 

* 

C3 

15 

—*» 

HJ 

Q_ 

#W 

*S> 

fc 

o 

^ 

^ 

5 

>■  ^ 

fc 

<u 

o 

c 

w 

o 

bfl 

• 

5 

Eh 
O 

< 

Id 

1 

fe 

E 

.<o 

<^> 

M 

ii 

«£ 

Jgg 

tf 

CO 

"^ 

P* 

2 

*>4 

o 

>-* 

JQ 

% 

C 

s 

£ 

CD 

£> 

s 

I     <^ 

£ 

1 

^ 

>                ^ 

^ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/restrictedcommunOOtayl 


§lesiritto  (&mwm. 


RESTRICTED  COMMUNION: 


OR, 


BAPTISM  AN  ESSENTIAL  PREREQUISITE 
TO  THE  LORD'S  SUPPER. 


BY 

JAMES  B.  TAYLOR, 

Richmond,  Va. 


CHARLESTON: 

SOUTHERN  BAPTIST  PUBLICATION  SOCIETY, 

No.  229  King  Street. 
1856. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1856, 

BY  THE  SOUTHERN  BAPTIST  PUBLICATION  SOCIETY, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  South- 
Carolina. 


CHARLESTON  : 

JAMES  AND  WILLIAMS,  PRINTERS, 

16  STATE   STREET. 


k  \ 


-.. 


RESTRICTED  COMMUNION. 


Matt,  xxviii:  19-20. 
"Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holv  Ghost ;  teaching  them 
to  observe  all  things,  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you." 

1  Corinthians  xi :  1-2- 
*"  Be  ye  followers  of  me,  even  as  I  also  am  of  Christ.    Now  I  praise 
you,  brethren,  that  ye  remember  me  in  all  things,  and  keep  the  ordi- 
nances, as  I  delivered  them  to  you." 


What  is  ordinarily  termed  close  communion, 
has  for  years  excited  no  little  attention  in  the 
religious  world.  By  many,  it  has  been  regard- 
ed as  having  its  rise  in  bigotry,  and  on  this 
account  has  been  the  occasion  of  much  re- 
proach to  our  churches.  It  becomes  a  ques- 
tion of  interest  to  all  Christians:  Is  this 
charge  of  sectarianism  well  founded;  or,  can 
it  be  made  to  appear  that  the  practice  of  re- 


6  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 

stricted  communion  is  sustained  by  sound 
and  incontestable  argument?  We  propose  to 
examine  the  subject,  for  the  purpose  of  ascer- 
taining what  light  is  shed  upon  it  by  the 
Word  of  God.  It  is  not  as  the  "rule  "  of  "  our 
churches,"  that  we  wish  to  defend  it,  but  as 
the  practice  of  the  primitive  disciples. 

In  a  question  of  so  much  importance,  no 
considerations  of  policy  should  influence  the 
mind,  without  the  clearest  evidence  of  scrip- 
tural precedent.  Whatever  may  become  of 
denominational  preferences  or  interests,  let 
the  dictation  of  the  King  of  Zion,  and  the  ex- 
ample of  the  apostolic  churches  be  cheerfully 
followed.  If  the  system  of  restricted  commu- 
nion be  not  warranted  by  the  will  of  Christ, 
as  taught  in  the  New  Testament,  then  it 
should  be  at  once,  and  forever  abandoned  by 
us;  but  if  it  be  found  to  originate  in  the  Di- 
vine authority,  not  only  should  our  brethren 
of  other  denominations  lay  aside  their  objec- 
tions, but,  at  whatever  sacrifice,  determine  to 
be  followers  of  us,  even  as  we  follow  Christ. 

In  explaining  and  enforcing  the  scriptural 
propriety  of  restricted  communion,  we  pro- 
pose to  prove 


KESTRICTED    COMMUNION.  7 

I.  That  baptism,  upon  a  profession  of  faith 
in  Christ,  is  an  essential  prerequisite  to  the  pri- 
vileges of  church  fellowship,  and  of  the  Lord's 
table. 

1.  There  is  satisfactory  evidence  that  those 
who  participated  in  the  first  supper,  were 
baptized.  These  were  the  twelve  apostles, 
with  Christ  as  their  administrator.  "  In  the 
evening,  he  cometh  with  the  twelve,  and  as 
they  did  eat,  Jesus  took  bread  and  blessed, 
and  broke,"  etc.  The  question  is,  were  these 
disciples  baptized?  There  is  no  specific  record 
of  the  fact,  but  is  it  not  a  legitimate  conclu- 
sion that  they  were?  Previous  to  this  solemn 
and  affecting  period,  they  had  baptized  multi- 
tudes, even  more  than  John  had  baptized. 
"  After  these  things,  came  Jesus  into  the  land 
of  Judea,  and  there  he  tarried  with  them,  and 
baptized."  John  iii:  22.  In  the.,  next  chapter, 
we  are  informed:  "  When  therefore  the  Lord 
knew  the  Pharisees  had  heard  that  Jesus 
made  and  baptized  more  disciples  than  John: 
though  Jesus  himself  baptized  not,  but  his  disciples.'" 
Is  it  to  be  presumed,  that  they  were  in  the 
habit  of  baptizing  those  who  professed  sub- 
mission to  Christ,  while  they  themselves  were 


8  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 

unbaptized?  They  were  commanded  to  "  Go 
and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the 
name,"  etc.  Did  they  urge  obedience  to  this 
rite,  when  they  had  themselves  neglected  it? 
No  definite  information  is  given  us  concern- 
ing the  circumcision  of  Moses  and  Aaron,  yet 
none  pretend  to  doubt  that  they  were  circum- 
cised. 

Even  the  distinguished  Robert  Hall,  could 
not  evade  the  force  of  evidence,  that  the  apos- 
tles were  baptized;  at  least,  he  thinks  it  "  cer- 
tain that  some,  probably  most  of  them,  bad 
been  baptized ; "  but  he  endeavors,  ingenious- 
ly, to  distinguish  between  John's  and  Christian 
baptism.  There  was,  indeed,  a  distinction,  but 
no  essential  difference.  Those  who  were  baptiz- 
ed by  John,  were  required  to  repent  and  be- 
lieve in  the  Messiah,  just  about  to  appear; 
while  those  baptized  by  the  apostles,  were  ex- 
pected penitently  to  receive  and  rejoice  in  the 
Saviour,  who  had  already  come;  so  that  while 
there  was  a  difference  in  the  degree  of  light 
reflected  on  the  claims  of  Jesus,  as  the  Messi- 
ah, the  design  of  baptism  in  these  two  cases 
was  essentially  the  same.  In  each,  it  was  in- 
tended to  indicate  subjection  to  the  reign  of 


RESTRICTED    COMMUNION.  V) 

Christ.  We  therefore  conclude,  that  the 
twelve  who  participated  in  the  first  supper, 
were  baptized  believers. 

2.  The  commission  clearly  indicates  that 
baptism  preceded  the  Lord's  supper,  and,  is  a 
prerequisite  to  it.  This  is  contained  in  the 
words:  "  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  na- 
tions, baptizing  them,"  etc.  The  evangelist 
Mark  renders  it:  "Go  ye  into  all  the  world, 
and  preach  the  gospel  unto  every  creature, 
he  that  believeth  and  is  baptized,  shall  be 
saved,"  etc. 

Let  this  be  carefully  noted.  The  only  rule 
by  which  we  are  guided  in  baptizing  those 
who  believe,  is  found  in  this  specific  com- 
mand. The  King  of  Zion  in  the  most  simple 
language  directs  the  performance  of  this  duty. 
He  who  proclaimed  the  gospel,  was  required 
to  baptize  believers — and,  he  that  believed  the 
gospel,  was  required  to  be  baptized.  How  can 
the  force  of  this  obligation  be  evaded?  Will 
any  one  who  preaches,  for  a  moment  hesitate 
as  to  what  is  his  duty  in  this  particular?  Or, 
will  any  one  who  trusts  in  Jesus  Christ,  hesi- 
tate as  to  his  duty?  It  must  also  strike  the 
mind  of  every  unbiassed  reader  of  the  com- 
2 


JO  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 

mission,  that  the  duty  of  the  preacher,  and  of 
the  believer  in  this  thing,  was  immediate.  "  Go, 
teach,  baptizing.  He  that  believeth  and  is 
baptized,  shall  be  saved."  As  soon  as  both 
parties  could  be  satisfied  of  the  existence  of 
faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  baptism  was  to  follow. 

This  first  duty  having  been  performed,  be- 
lievers were  to  be  taught  or  instructed  in  re- 
gard to  all  other  duties;  "  Teaching  them  to 
observe  all  things,  whatsoever  I  have  com- 
manded them."  Among  these  "  things,"  was 
the  direction  to  eat  of  the  bread,  and  drink 
of  the  cup,  in  remembrance  of  Him.  Thus 
the  order  to  be  observed  in  keeping  the  ordi- 
nances, as  delivered  by  the  ascending  Re- 
deemer, cannot  be  mistaken,  if  we  impartially 
consider  the  import  of  the,  great  commission 
under  which  the  church  acts,  in  giving  the 
gospel  to  the  world.  This  leads  us  to  exam- 
ine 

3.  The  practice  of  the  apostles  and  early 
evangelists,  as  furnishing  proof  that  baptism 
necessarily  preceded  the  Lord's  supper.  The 
very  first  instance  in  which  the  crucified  one 
was  declared  to  be  exalted  a  Prince  and  a  Sa- 
viour, to  give  repentance  to  Israel  and  remis- 


RESTRICTED    COMMUNION.  11 

sion  of  sins,  presents  the  clearest  evidence  of 
that  fact.  After  Peter  had  preached  his  me- 
morable Pentecostal  discourse,  as  recorded  in 
the  second  of  Acts,  he  having,  in  obedience 
to  the  commission,  commanded  them  to  repent 
and  be  baptized,  the  historian  states,  that 
"  They  that  gladly  received  his  word  were 
baptized,  and  the  same  day  there  were  added 
unto  them  about  three  thousand  souls;  and 
they  (these  baptized  believers)  continued 
steadfastly  in  the  apostle's  doctrine,  and  fel- 
lowship, and  in  breaking  of  bread,  and  in  pray- 
ers." In  Jerusalem,  then,  the  apostles  forth- 
with baptized  the  converts  to  Christ. 

Let  us  ascertain  the  course  they  pursued, 
when  they  left  this  city.  In  the  eighth  chap- 
ter of  the  acts,  we  learn  that  Philip  having 
gone  to  Samaria,  "  preached  Christ  unto 
them."  "  And  when  they  believed  Philip, 
preaching  the  things  concerning  the  kingdom 
of  God,  and  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  they 
were  baptized  both  men  and  women."  Does 
it  not  occur  to  every  reader  of  this  simple 
history,  that  Philip  regarded  baptism  as  an 
immediate  duty,  when  faith  in  Jesus  Christ 
had  been  exercised  ?     In   the   same   chapter, 


12  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 

another  remarkable  proof  of  the  position  now 
contemplated  is  to  be  found.  This  same  Philip 
by  divine  direction,  preached  the  gospel  to  an 
Ethiopian  eunuch,  whom  he  found  inquiring 
the  way  of  salvation,  and  the  very  first  indica- 
tion of  faith  in  the  Redeemer  was  furnished  by 
his  earnest  entreaty  to  be  baptized.  "  Philip 
opened  his  mouth,  and  began  at  the  same 
scripture  and  preached  unto  him  Jesus.  And, 
as  they  went  on  their  way,  they  came  unto  a 
certain  water;  and  the  eunuch  said,  '  See,  here 
is  water;  what  doth  hinder  me  to  be  bap- 
tized V  "  Immediately,  upon  a  profession  of 
his  faith,  Philip  baptized  him.  The  conclusion 
is  inevitable,  that  Philip,  in  preaching  to  this 
Ethiopian,  had  explained  the  genius  of  the 
kingdom  of  Christ,  and  urged,  according  to 
the  commission,  baptism  as  the  immediate 
duty  of  believers.  Hence  the  eager  solicitude 
of  this  man  to  be  baptized,  and  the  readiness 
of  the  missionary  to  gratify  his  wishes. 

The  next  case  referred  to  in  the  evangelic 
history,  is  the  conversion  of  Saul  of  Tarsus. 
When  arrested  by  the  supernatural  light,  and 
the  voice  of  Jesus  Christ,  he  cried  out  in  the 
anguish  of  his  spirit, — "  Lord,  what  wilt  thou 


RESTRICTED    COMMUNION.  13 

have  me  to  do  ?"  he  was  directed  to  go  into 
the  city,  and  there  should  be  told  him  what  he 
must  do.  Ananias  was  sent  to  him,  and  the 
first  command,  after  receiving  intimations  con- 
cerning his  future  employ,  was  to  be  baptized. 
See  Acts,  xxii.  16.  Ananias  regarded  it  as  an 
immediate  obligation  of  the  believer,  to  be 
baptized. 

When  Peter  preached  to  Cornelius  and  his 
household,  as  soon  as  he  recognized  them  to 
be  believers,  "  he  commanded  them  to  6e 
baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord." 

With  respect  to  Lydia  and  her  household, 
we  learn  that  the  Lord  having  opened  her 
heart,  li  she  attended  unto  the  things  which 
were  spoken  of  Paul,  and  when  she  was  bap- 
tized," etc.  Acts,  xvi:  15.  In  the  same  chap- 
ter is  recorded  the  remarkable  conversion  of 
the  jailor  and  his  family.  This  man  having 
believed  on  the  Lord  Jesus,  "  took  them  (Paul 
and  Silas)  the  same  hour  of  the  night,  and 
washed  their  stripes,  and  was  baptized,  he 
and  all  his  straightway;  and  when  he  had 
brought  them  into  his  house,  he  set  meat  before 
them,  and  rejoiced,  believing  in  God,  with  all 
his  house." 


14  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 

When  Paul  preached  the  words  of  rtfe  in  the 
city  of  Corinth,  we  are  distinctly  informed, 
that  "  Crispus,  the  chief  ruler  of  the  syna- 
gogue, believed  on  the  Lord,  with  all  his  house: 
and  many  of  the  Corinthians  hearing,  believed, 
and  were  baptized."     Acts,  xviii:  S. 

Can  any  candid  reader  of  the  brief  history 
of  Christ's  kingdom,  as  contained  in  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles,  escape  the  conclusiou,  that  his 
ministers,  who  received  their  commission  di- 
rectly from  his  lips,  urged  the  obligation  of 
believers  to  be  baptized  as  immediate  and  im- 
perative ?  And,  is  not  the  fact  as  apparent, 
that  they  regarded  baptism  as  a  necessary 
prerequisite  to  the  privileges  of  church  fellow- 
ship and  of  the  Lord's  table  ?  In  the  natural 
order  of  things,  baptism  always  preceded  the 
supper. 

4.  From  various  allusions  in  the  apostolic 
letters,  it  is  evident  that  the  churches  in  pri- 
mitive times,  were  composed  of  baptized  be- 
lievers. 

The  first  which  occurs  is  in  the  epistle  to  the 
Romans,  The  incidental  allusion  to  baptism 
in  the  sixth  chapter,  furnishes  satisfactory 
evidence  that  these  Christians  were  baptized. 


RESTRICTED    COMMUNION.  15 

Urging  the  claims  of  practical  holiness,  as  re- 
sulting from  salvation  by  grace,  the  apostle 
inquires:  "  How  shall  we  that  are  dead  to  sin, 
live  any  longer  therein  ?  Know  ye  not  that 
so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus 
Christ,  were  baptized  into  his  death?  There- 
fore we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into 
death,  that  like  as  Christ,  was  raised  up  from 
the  dead,  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so 
we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life."  Mr. 
Stuart,  in  his  critical  remarks  on  the  subject, 
interprets  it,  "As  many  as  have  become  devot- 
ed to  Christ  by  baptism;  as  many  as  have  been 
consecrated  to  Christ  by  baptism,  or  been  laid 
under  peculiar  obligations,  or  taken  upon 
them  a  peculiar  relation  to  him,  by  being  bap- 
tized." The  argument  is  plain  and  forcible,  and 
is  in  substance  this,  "  We  have  been  baptized, 
and,  therefore,  it  would  be  inconsistent  to  live 
in  sin."  The  Eoman  Christians  were  baptized. 
In  the  letter  to  the  Corinthian  church,  the 
author,  alluding  to  the  faction  which  had  been 
raised  in  favor  of  himself  and  others,  inquires 
"  Were  ye  baptized  in  the  name  of  Paul  V- 
And,  lest  any  should  conclude  that  he  sought 
to  become  the  head  of  a  party,  he  thanks  God, 


16  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 

that,  excepting  a  few  among  them,  they  had 
not  been  baptized  by  him.  The  implication  is 
clear,  that  all  the  members  of  this  church  had 
been  baptized,  though  not  by  the  apostle  Paul. 

That  the  Galatian  church  consisted  of 
baptized  believers,  is  unquestionable  from  the 
allusion  in  the  epistle  addressed  to  them:  "Ye 
are  all  the  children  of  God  by  faith  in  Jesus 
Christ;  for  as  many  as  have  been  baptized 
into  Christ,  have  put  on  Christ.  There  is 
neither  Jew  nor  Greek,  there  is  neither  bond 
nor  free,  there  is  neither  male  nor  female,  for 
ye  are  all  one  in  Christ  Jesus." 

In  the  letter  to  the  Ephesians,  the  apostle, 
in  urging  the  importance  of  unity  in  the  church, 
introduces  as  an  argument  the  fact,  that  they 
had  all  yielded  to  one  baptism.  "  There  is 
one  body,  and  one  spirit,  even  as  ye  are  called 
in  one  hope  of  your  calling,  one  Lord,  one 
faith,  one  baptism;  one  God  and  Father  of  all, 
who  is  above  all,  and  through  all,  and  in  you 
all."     They  were  all  baptized  believers. 

The  church  at  Colosse,  being  addressed  by 
the  apostle  Paul,  on  the  necessity  of  adhering 
to  Christ,  both  in  sentiment  and  in  practice, 
were  reminded  of  their  obligations  publicly 


RESTRICTED     COMMUNION7.  It 

assumed  in  baptism.  "  Buried  with  him  in 
baptism,  wherein  also  ye  are  risen  with  him 
through  the  faith  of  the  operation  of  God, 
who  had  raised  him  from  the  dead."  He  after- 
wards adds,  M  If  ye  then  be  risen  with  Christ 
(as  indicated  when  you  were  buried  with  him 
in  baptism  and  raised  from  the  liquid  grave), 
seek  those  things  which  are  above."  Was  not 
the  Colossian  church  composed  of  baptized 
believers  ? 

It  may  be  important  to  refer  to  another  ex- 
ample, found  in  one  of  the  letters  of  the  apostle 
Peter.  Having  introduced  an  illustration 
from  the  history  of  Noah  and  his  family,  who 
were  saved  in  the  ark,  he  adds,  "The  like 
figure  whereunto  even  baptism  doth  also  now 
save  us;  not  the  putting  away  of  the  filth  of 
the  flesh,  but  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience 
towards  God,  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
Christ."  Can  we  escape  the  conclusion  that 
the  scattered  disciples  "throughout  Pontus, 
Galatia,  Cappadocia,  Asia  and  Bythinia,"  were 
all  baptized  believers  ? 

5.  The  nature  and  design  of  baptism  proves 
its  indispensable  precedence  in  the  order  of 
duties  to  be  performed  by  believers. 


18  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 

Baptism  as  a  ceremonial  of  divine  origin, 
must  necessarily  be  intended  to  occupy 
some  important  place,  and  to  subserve  some 
important  design  in  the  Christian  economy. 
When  we  learn  the  object  of  this  institution, 
we  shall  have  more  definite  ideas  respecting 
the  time  when  it  is  to  be  performed.  From  the 
light  furnished  by  the  inspired  word,  we  are 
authorized  to  represent  the  design  of  baptism, 
as  consisting  in  a  solemn  acknowledgement  of  the 
Son  of  God,  as  Redeemer  and  King.  By  the 
exercise  of  penitent  reliance  on  Jesus  Christ, 
the  sinner  is  released  from  condemnation, 
and  brought  into  a  state  of  favor.  "  He  that 
believeth  on  the  Son,  hath  everlasting  life." 
u  This  is  the  will  of  Him  that  sent  me,  that 
every  one  which  seeth  the  Son,  and  believeth  on 
him,  may  have  everlasting  life."  In  reply  to  the 
inquiry  "  what  shall  I  do  to  be  saved,"  the 
answer  is  prompt  and  definite;  ''believe  in 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be 
saved."  "All  that  believe  are  justified,"  etc. 
"A  man  is  justified  by  faith  without  the  deeds 
of  the  law."  See  the  latter  part  of  the  third, 
and  the  whole  of  the  fourth  chapters  of  Rom- 
ans. 


RESTRICTED    COMMUNION.  19 

When  this  great  change  in  the  character  and 
condition  of  the  sinner  takes  place,  it  becomes 
appropriate,  and  is  made  necessary  by  the 
head  of  the  church,  that  a  public  profession  of 
the  existence  of  this  change,  shall  be  made. 
The  believer  now  forgiven  and  turned  in 
heart  to  the  Lord,  is  required  to  declare  the 
new  position  he  occupies.  He  is  not  only  to 
receive  Christ  in  his  heart  by  faith  and  to  en- 
joy by  faith,  a  sense  of  security  through  him, 
but  to  be  openly  designated  as  a  follower 
of  Christ  henceforth  to  yield  obedience  to  all 
his  laws.  Such  a  public  declaration  of  faith 
in  Christ,  and  devotion  to  him,  is  made 
in  baptism.  It  is  this  which  stamps  bap- 
tism with  such  a  commandiug  importance  in 
the  economy  of  grace.  A  significant  pledge 
is  thus  given  of  the  design  of  the  saved 
believer,  to  consecrate  all  to  God.  That  this 
is  the  design  of  the  institution,  must  be 
yielded  by  all  who  consider  the  argument  of 
the  apostle  in  the  sixth  chapter  of  Romans. — 
He  inquires,  -  How  shall  we  that  are  dead  to 
sin,  live  any  longer  therein  V}  and  then  refers 
to  their  baptism  as  an  urgent  reason  for  holi- 
ness of  life.     He  thus  reminds  them  of  the  de- 


20  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 

sign  of  this  ordinance  as  expressive  of  love  to 
Christ,  and  their  purpose  to  live  to  him.  The 
passage  already  referred  to  in  the  third  chap- 
ter of  Galatians,  has  also  regard  to  the  design 
of  their  baptism.  "Ye  are  all  the  children  of 
God  by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ."  It  was  in 
faith,  or  by  faith,  that  they  became  God's 
people.  He  then  adds,  "  As  many  of  you,  as 
have  been  baptized  into  Christ,  have  put  on 
Christy  By  baptism,  they  assumed  publicly 
the  responsibilities  of  God's  children.  Thus 
this  institution  became  the  badge  of  disciple- 
ship.  It  was  a  solemn  and  impressive  recog- 
nition of  the  change  which  had  taken  place  in 
the  character  and  state  of  the  believer.  The 
phrase,  "put  on  Christ,"  has  allusion  to  the 
dress  assumed  by  one  who  enters  into  the 
service  of  some  distinguished  personage.  By 
this  dress  he  is  to  be  thus  designated.  Bap- 
tism is  the  livery  of  God's  servants,  and  in  it 
they  avow  their  determination  to  honor  and 
obey  him. 

If  this  view  of  the  subject  be  correct,  is  not 
baptism,  naturally  the  first  duty  to  be  per- 
formed by  the  believer?  Having  yielded  his 
heart  to   God,   and  realized   God's  mercy  by 


RESTRICTED    COMMUNION.  ,  21 

faith  in  Christ,  should  he  not  immediately  de- 
clare to  the  world,  the  new  relations  he  sus- 
tains? Most  unquestionably.  Before  he  ca'n 
be  duly  recognized  as  a  member  of  the  church, 
and  be  entitled  to  its  privileges,  he  must  take 
the  oath  of  allegiance  to  Christ  by  being  bap- 
tized. It  is  this  which  accounts  for  the  fact, 
that  in  primitive  times,  baptism  was  immedi- 
ately subsequent  to  a  joyful  trust  in  the  Re- 
deemer. 

6.  Nearly  all  denominations  of  Christians 
regard  baptism  as  an  indispensable  prerequis- 
ite to  the  privileges  of  the  Lord's  table.  Al- 
though evidence  of  piety  may  be  furnished, 
but  few  churches  would  consider  an  individ- 
ual entitled  to  a  place  in  the  church,  or  at  the 
communion  table,  if  he  had  neglected  the  first 
ordinance.  This  has  been  the  almost  uniform 
sentiment  and  practice  of  the  various  orders 
of  professing  Christians  in  every  age  since 
the  days  of  the  apostles.  As  illustrative  of 
the  views  entertained  by  nearly  all  Pedo-bap- 
tists,  the  language  of  Mr.  Wall,  in  his  work 
entitled  History  of  Infant  Baptism,  may  be 
appropriately  introduced.  "  No  church  ever 
gave  the  communion  to  any  persons  before 
3 


22  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 

they  were  baptized.  Among'  all  the  absurdi- 
ties that  ever  were  held,  none  ever  maintained 
that,  that  any  person  should  partake  of  the 
communion  before  he  was  baptized." 

Mr.  Doddridge,  in  referring  to  this  subject, 
remarks:  "It  is  certain  that  as  far  as  our 
knowledge  of  primitive  antiquity  reaches,  no 
unbaptized  person  received  the  Lord's  supper. 
How  excellent  soever  any  man's  character  is, 
he  must  be  baptized  before  he  can  be  looked 
upon  as  completely  a  member  of  the  church  of 
Christ."  Not  less  pertinent  is  the  language  of 
Dr.  D wight.  M  It  is  (says  that  distinguished 
author)  an  indispensable  qualification  for  this 
ordinance  (the  Lord's  Supper)  that  the  candi- 
date be  a  member  of  the  visible  church  of 
Christ,  in  full  standing.  By  this,  I  intend,  that 
he. should  be  a  person  of  piety;  that  he 
should  have  made  a  public  -profession  of 
religion;  and,  that  he  should  have  been  bap- 
tized." It  will  be  perceived  by  these  extracts, 
and  by  the  sentiments  and  practice  of  most 
Pedo-baptist  denominations,  that  they  differ 
altogether  from  Mr.  Hall,  in  the  main  argu- 
ment with  which  we  are  assailed.  Although 
he  was  willing  to  admit  that  baptism  was  to 


RESTRICTED    COMMUNION.  23 

be  performed  immediately  subsequent  to  faith, 
yet,  he  insisted  that  baptism  being  neglected, 
the  privilege  of  the  supper  might  be  enjoyed. 
"  It  cannot  be  pretended  (he  remarks)  that 
an  unbaptized  believer  is  intrinsically  disquali- 
fied for  a  suitable  attendance  at  the  Lord's 
table,  or,  that  it  is  so  essentially  connected 
with  baptism,  as  to  render  the  act  of  commu- 
nion itself  absurd  and  improper."  With  res- 
pect to  most  Pedo-baptist  churches,  an  indi- 
vidual is  regarded  as  disqualified  according  to 
the  order  of  the  Lord's  house,  if  he  has  not, 
in  their  estimation,  been  baptized.  He  would 
neither  be  received  into  their  fellowship,  nor 
admitted  to  the  table  of  our  Lord,  if  he  had 
not  obeyed  the  prerequisite  institution.  They 
regard  the  will  of  Christ,  to  confess  him  in 
baptism,  as  peremptory. 

It  will  not  be  out  of  place  here,  to  refer  to 
a  practical  illustration  of  the  views  of  all  con- 
sistent Pedo-baptists.  The  fact  was  narrated 
to  the  writer,  by  the  late  venerable  Bishop 
Moore  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  Virginia. 
In  the  earlier  part  of  his  ministry,  while  offi- 
ciating in  the  State  of  New  York,  on  a  cer- 
tain sacramental  occasion,  he  presented  to  the 


24  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 

members  of  other  denominations  an  urgent 
appeal,  inviting*  them  to  participate  in  the  pri- 
vilege of  commemorating  the  dying  love  of 
Christ,  at  his  table.  In  this  address  he  ad- 
verted to  the  right  of  Christians  to  commune 
together,  representing  it  as  the  Lord's  table, 
and  denying  the  propriety  of  repulsing  any  of 
the  Lord's  people.  The  appeal  had  its  desired 
effect.  Several,  of  different  denominations, 
came  forward.  Among  others,  to  the  surprise 
of  Mr.  Moore,  was  a  prominent  member  of  the 
Quaker  persuasion,  a  man  of  highly  respecta- 
ble character  and  of  undoubted  piety.  The 
minister  supposed  that  he  might  have  changed 
his  sentiments,  and  have  been  baptized.  He 
approached  the  applicant  as  he  knelt  at  the 
chancel,  and  affectionately  inquired  if  he  had 
obeyed  Christ  in  baptism.  He  was  informed, 
that  a  change  of  sentiment  had  taken  place 
with  respect  to  the  perpetual  obligation  of 
the  Lord's  supper,  but  not  in  relation  to  the 
other  ordinance.  In  this  painful  dilemma,  Mr. 
Moore  stated,  that  for  a  moment  he  scarcely 
knew  what  was  best  to  be  done.  He,  howev- 
er, soon  determined  that  he  could  not  consci- 
entiously administer  the  communion  to  his  Qua- 


RESTRICTED    COMMUNION.  25 

ker  brother,  although  he  believed  him  to  be  a 
man  of  God,  because  he  had  not  been  baptized. 
He  stated  his  difficulties  to  his  friend,  and  re- 
quested him  to  retain  his  place  and  he  would 
simply  pass  by  him  in  the  administration  of 
the  elements.  In  pursuing  this  course,  the 
Bishop  was  consistent.  Although  he  presided 
at  the  "  table  of  the  Lord,"  and  although  he 
regarded  his  friend  as  one  of  the  Lord's  people, 
yet  the  terms  of  access  having  been  prescribed  by 
the  Lord,  he  did  not  consider  himself  at  liberty  to 
change,  the  order  of  things,  as  delivered  to  the  saints. 
This  is  the  ground  we  occupy  in  declining  to  com- 
mune with  other  evangelic  denominations. 

Having  thus  gone  briefly  through  the  argu- 
ments to  sustain  the  indispensable  precedence 
of  baptism  to  Church  privileges  and  the  Lord's 
supper,  we  feel  prepared  to  discuss  another 
important  branch  of  our  subject.  If  baptism 
as  we  have  shown,  is  a  prerequisite  to  commu- 
nion, it  is  equally  necessary  that  the  subject  of 
baptism  be  a  professed  believer  in  Jesus  Christ. 
No  unconscious  infants  are  to  be  received  into 
the  churches. 

The  limits  of  this  little  work  will  not  per- 
mit us  to  go  into  a  long  and  labored  argument 


26  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 

on  the  subject.  Enough  however  will  be  sta- 
ted to  exhibit  the  ground  upon  which  we 
stand  in  conscientiously  declining  to  commune 
with  Pedo-baptists. 

Our  first  remark  will  have  reference  to  the 
want  of  scriptural  authority  for  the  baptism 
of  any  other  than  believers.  There  is  no  war- 
rant for  infant  baptism  in  the  Word  of  God. 
This  is  our  great  difficulty.  As  Christian  pa- 
rents, we  love  our  children,  and  are  prepared 
to  arrange  and  labor  for  their  temporal  welfare. 
Above  all,  we  are  interested  for  their  spiritual 
interest.  Nothing  we  can  do,  in  accordance 
with  the  Divine  will,  for  the  promotion  of  their 
eternal  good,  would  we  leave  undone.  We 
are  willing  to  consecrate  them  in  their  earliest 
being,  to  God  in  prayer.  The  good  and  the 
right  way  we  would  teach  them,  impressing 
upon  their  tender  minds,  with  the  first  exer- 
cise of  reason,  their  responsibilities  to  God, 
their  maker.  The  power  of  a  godly  example 
we  would  bring  to  bear  upon  their  hearts, 
thus  training  them  up  in  the  nurture  and  ad- 
monition of  the  Lord.  All  this  we  can  do,  but 
baptise  them  we  cannot,  because  God  has  not 
required  it  at  our  hands.     To  baptise  our  chil- 


RESTRICTED    COMMUNION.  2't 

dren  we  should  deem  an  act  of  disloyalty  to 
our  Lord,  just  as  the  neglect  of  baptism  in 
our  case,  as  believers,  would  be  disloyal  to 
him.  He  has  not  required  it  at  our  hands.  We 
have  searched  the  scriptures  diligently,  desir- 
ing to  know  all  our  duty  with  reference  to  the 
loved  ones  whom  God  has  given  us;  but  we 
find  them  silent  on  the  subject  of  infant  bap- 
tism. We  have  read  human  productions,  and 
examined  the  arguments  employed  to  sustain 
this  practice,  but  remain  firm  in  our  convic- 
tions that  it  is  unscriptural  and  wrong.  Nor 
are  we  alone  in  these  convictions.  A  large 
proportion,  even  of  Pedo-baptists,  are  either 
skeptical  on  the  subject,  or  avowdly  opposed 
to  infant  baptism.  The  sentiment  is  increasing* 
in  strength  among  Pedo-baptist  churches,  that 
the  practice  is  without  scriptural  warrant. 
Hence,  the  number  of  infants  admitted  to  the 
ordinance  is,  in  proportion  to  the  increase  of 
adult  church  members,  annually  diminishing. 
It  is,  too,  a  fair  inference  that  the  diminished 
hold  which  this  unscriptural  usage  has  upon 
the  regard  of  Pedo-baptist  churches  of  this 
land,  is  owing  to  the  influence  of  Baptists  in 


28  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 

the  testimony  they  bear  on  the  communion 
question. 

We  have  said  that  many  of  the  wisest  and 
best  of  our  Pedo-baptist  brethren  are  beginning 
to  acquiesce  in  the  doctrine,  that  not  only  is 
baptism  a  prerequisite  to  the  Lord's  supper, 
but  that  baptism  can  only  be  appropriately 
administered  to  believers.  The  statement  of 
the  distinguished  Dr.  Woods,  that  "  It  is  plain 
there  is  no  express  precept  respecting  infant 
baptism  in  our  sacred  writings,"  finds  a  re- 
sponse in  the  hearts  of  many  of  his  brethren. 
The  North  British  Review,  high  Pedo-baptist 
authority,  but  reiterates  the  sentiment  in  the 
assertion  that  "  Scripture  knows  nothing  of 
the  baptism  of  infants."  The  different  argu- 
ments by  which  infant  baptism  has  been  sus- 
tained, one  after  another,  have  been  given  up 
by  many  of  the  best  Pedo-baptist  writers. 

In  preparing  the  mind  of  the  reader  to  feel 
the  full  force  of  our  argument,  we  insist,  in 
the  second  place,  that  the  abandonment  of  the 
voluntary  principle,  in  the  admission  of  in- 
fants to  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  is  fraught 
with  the   most  pernicious  results.     An  unhappy 


RESTRICTED    COMMUNION".  29 

effect  is  produced  upon  the  mind  of  the  child 
in  proportion  as  his  baptism  is  invested  with 
solemnity,  by  inducing  an  undue  reliance  on 
the  ordinance,  and  the  expectation  of  some 
saving  efficacy  attached  to  it.  The  world  and 
the  church  are  thereby  amalgamated.  "'Are  not 
all  national  religious  establishments  traceable 
to  infant  baptism?  As  the  carnal  mind  is 
alienated  from  God,  will  not  those  who,  in  one 
sense  or  another,  become  identified  with  the 
church  in  their  infancy,  and  who  grow  up 
without  a  change  of  heart,  be  inclined  to  re- 
pudiate those  great  scriptural  truths  which  lie 
at  the  foundation  of  practical  religion?  Hence 
the  danger  arising  from  infant  baptism,  that 
corrupt  sentiment  and  corrupt  practice  will 
prevail  in  what  is  called  the  Christian  church. 
As  illustration  and  proof  of  this,  let  the  his- 
tory of  the  great  English,  Greek,  and  Roman 
hierarchies  be  examined.  Let  the  various 
branches  of  Lutheran  and  Calvinian  churches 
of  Europe  stand  forth  as  examples  of  the  fact. 
Is  not  the  tendency  of  infant  baptism  to  be  re- 
cognized in  that  sweeping  current  of  error 
which  so  fearfully  desolated  the  Congregation- 
al Churches  of  New  England?     And  if  infant 


30  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 

baptism  should  universally  be  required,  and 
universally  prevail,  would  not  the  distinctive 
peculiarities  of  the  gospel  system  be  obscured, 
if  not  obliterated? 

On  these  accounts,  then,  we  are  compelled 
to  repudiate  infant  baptism.  First,  its  want 
of  scriptural  authority;  and  second,  its  inju- 
rious tendencies.  None  are  properly  to  be  ad- 
mitted to  the  Lord's  table,  but  the  baptised; 
and  none  are  to  be  baptised,  but  such  as 
exercise  faith  in  the  Gospel  message. 

If  baptism  upon  a  profession  of  faith  be  an 
essential  prerequisite  to  admission  to  the 
Lord's  table,  it  becomes  important  to  ascertain 
what  is  baptism;  and  we  shall  therefore  pro- 
ceed to  prove 

II.  That  baptism  consists  in  the  immersion  of 
the  body  in  water. 

It  is  admitted  by  us  in  contending  for  im- 
mersion as  the  exclusively  scriptural  prac- 
tice, that  we  shall  come  in  contact  with  a 
portion  of  the  Christian  world.  Various  de- 
nominations regard  the  acts  of  pouring  and 
sprinkling  as  valid  and  proper.  At  issue 
with  them  in  this  particular,  we  respectfully 
call  attention  to  some  of  the  arguments  which 


RESTRICTED    COMMUNION.  31 

satisfy  us  that  we  keep  the  ordinances  as  de- 
livered by  the  apostles. 

1.  We  will  refer  to  the  places  selected  for  the 
administration  of  baptism.  In  several  instan- 
ces no  allusion  is  made  in  the  evangelic  histo- 
ry to  the  place  of  performing  the  ordinance; 
but  wherever  such  allusion  is  found,  the  in- 
formation, either  direct  or  implied,  sustains 
the  position  before  us,  that  in  all  cases  the 
primitive  practice  was  immersion.  The  first 
scriptural  record  on  this  subject  narrates  with 
peculiar  simplicity  the  baptism  of  multitudes 
by  "  John  the  Baptist."  The  place  chosen  by 
him  for  the  performance  of  the  ordinance  was 
the  river  Jordan.  Matthew  states:  "Then  went 
out  to  him,  Jerusalem,  and  all  Judea,  and  all 
the  region  round  about  Jordan,  and  were  bap- 
tized of  him  in  Jordan,  confessing-  their  sins." 
"  Then  cometh  Jesus  from  Galilee  to  Jordan, 
unto  John,  to  be  baptized  of  him  *  *  *  * 
and  Jesus,  when  he  was  baptized,  went  up 
straigkhvay  out  of  the  water11  etc.  Similar  tes- 
timony is  given  by  Mark.  He  says  they  "Were 
all  baptized  of  him  in  the  river  Jordan]1  and  re- 
ferring to  Christ,  adds:  "Jesus  came  from 
Nazareth  of  Galilee,  and  was  baptized  of  John 


32  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 

in  Jordan,  and  straightway  coming  up  out  of  the 
water"  etc.  The  apostle  John,  in  his  histoiy, 
informs  us  that  "John  (the  forerunner)  was 
baptizing  in  JSnon,  near  to  Salim,  because  there 
was  much  water  there."  Would  not  every  read- 
er, unbiassed  by  the  prejudices  of  education, 
naturally  conclude,  from  the  places  in  which 
John  administered  the  ordinance,  and  the  lan- 
guage employed  in  describing  these  scenes, 
that  the  act  performed  by  him  was  immersion? 
Some  have  endeavored  to  evade  the  force  of 
this  plain  language  by  intimating  that  the  pre- 
positions "  in"  and  "  up  out  of"  might  have 
been  rendered  "  at"  and  "up  from,"  and 
that  subsequently  to  this  narrative,  John  is 
represented  as  saying,  "  I  indeed  baptize  you 
with  (not  in)  water,"  thereby  indicating  that 
water  was  applied  by  pouring  or  sprinkling. 
In  reply,  it  may  be  said  that  all  translations 
into  the  English  language  correspond  with  ours 
in  regard  to  the  first  items,  and  the  four  English 
versions  first  published  render  the  words  in 
Matthew,  iii:  11,  "en  udati"  "in  water,"  and 
not  "  with  water,"  Dr.  Campbell,  John  Her- 
vey,  and  most  distinguished  Pedobaptist  crit- 
ics, insist  that  this  is  its   signification.     Said 


RESTRICTED    COMMUNION.  33 

Mr.  Calvin:  "From  these  words,  John  iii:  23, 
it  may  be  inferred  that  baptism  was  adminis- 
tered by  John  and  Christ  by  plunging  the 
whole  body  under  water.  Here  we  perceive 
how  baptism  was  administered  among  the  an- 
cients, for  they  immersed  the  whole  body  in 
water.  Now  it  is  the  prevailing  practice  for 
a  minister  only  to  sprinkle  the  body  or  head." 
The  next  allusion  to  place,  in  the  sacred 
narrative,  is  found  in  the  eighth  chapter  of 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  "As  they  (Philip 
and  the  eunuch)  went  on  their  way,  they  came 
unto  a  certain  water;  and  the  eunuch  said, 
see,  here  is  water;  what  doth  hinder  me  to  be 
baptized?"  Having  become  satisfied  of  the 
eunuch's  faith,  Philip  "  commanded  the  cha- 
riot to  stand  still;  and  they  went  down  both 
into  the  water,  both  Philip  and  the  eunuch, 
and  he  baptized  him.  And  when  they  were 
come  up  out  of  the  water,  the  Spirit  of  the 
Lord,"  etc.  The  baptism  of  Lydia  and  her 
household,  is  referred  to  by  the  historian  in 
connexion  with  the  fact  that  Paul  and  Silas 
were  "  by  a  river  side  where  prayer  was  wont 
to  be  made,"  preaching  the  Gospel,  and  there 
4 


34  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 

the  Lord  opened  her  heart,  and  "  she  was  bap- 
tized and  her  household." 

These  are  the  scriptural  allusions,  to  place, 
in  the  administration  of  baptism.  The  other 
cases  of  baptism  are  recorded  without  airy 
such  reference.  It  is  urged  by  some,  that  in 
some  of  these  cases,  particularly  the  baptism 
of  the  three  thousand  in  Jerusalem,  and  of  the 
jailor  and  his  household,  the  inconvenience  of 
immersing  so  many,  and  of  findiDg  water  un- 
der the  circumstances,  are  arguments  against 
immersion.  To  this  it  may  be  replied  that  im- 
mersion, with  such  attendants  as  may  always 
be  procured,  can  be  performed  nearly,  if  not 
quite  as  expeditiously  as  pouring  or  sprink- 
ling, if  the  sacred  words  enjoined  by  Christ 
are  repeated  in  each  case;  and  in  no  instance 
in  any  part  of  the  world  has  it  ever  been 
found  necessary  to  postpone  or  neglect  immer- 
sion because  water  could  not  be  obtained. 
Wherever  human  beings  can  live,  there  must 
water  be  always  found  in  sufficient  abundance 
to  immerse  them  all.  Even  in  the  prisons  of 
our  country,  there  are  not  wanting  instances 
of  obedience  to  this  rite. 


RESTRICTED    COMMUNION.  35 

2.  That  baptism  is  immersion,  appears  from 
the  incidental  allusions  to  it  in  the  sacred  wri- 
tings. In  the  epistle  to  the  Romans  it  is  called 
a  burial.  "  We  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism 
into  death,  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up 
from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even 
so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life." 
How  beautiful,  how  forcible  is  this  allusion! 
They  had  become  dead  to  sin  and  alive  to  God. 
This  was  significantly  expressed  by  their  bap- 
tism. As  a  dead  man  is  buried,  and  when  bu- 
ried is  no  more  expected  to  return  and  mingle 
with  the  scenes  and  pursuits  of  this  world,  so 
the  believer  professes  the  great  change  which 
has  taken  place  in  his  character  by  being  bu- 
ried in  baptism,  and  is  no  more  expected  to  go 
back  to  the  old  world  of  sin  from  which  he 
has  been  sundered.  This  is  doubtless  the  pri- 
mary design  of  baptism,  while  at  the  same 
time  it  exhibits  the  burial  and  resurrection  of 
Christ.  A  similar  allusion  to  the  ordinance  is 
found  in  Colossians,  ii:  12-13.  "Buried  with 
him  in  baptism,  wherein  also  ye  are  risen  with 
him  through  the  faith  of  the  operation  of  God, 
who    hath    raised  him    from  the  dead,    and 


36  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION-. 

you  being  dead  in  your  sins,  hath  he  quick- 
ened together  with  him." 

Another  figurative  reference  to  baptism  is 
introduced  by  the  apostle  in  1  Corinthians,  x: 
1,  2:  "  All  our  fathers  were  under  the  cloud, 
and  all  passed  through  the  sea,  and  were  all 
baptized  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea." 
They  were  figuratively  immersed,  being  envel- 
oped or  covered,,  as  it  were,  on  all  sides,  by  the 
cloud  and  by  the  sea.  Does  not  Paul  here  refer 
to  the  practice  of  immersion,  just  as  he  does  in 
the  third  and  fourth  verses  to  the  supper?  In 
connection  with  this  passage  the  memorable 
words  of  the  Divine  Redeemer  furnish  figura- 
tive allusions  to  the  act  of  immersion.  "  I 
have  a  baptism  to  be  baptized  with,  and  how 
am  I  straitened  until  it  be  accomplished." 
"  Are  ye  able  to  drink  of  the  cup  that  I  shall 
drink  of,  and  to  be  baptized  with  the  baptism 
that  I  am  baptized  with?"  The  idea  conveyed 
is  clear;  I  am  to  be  submerged  in  suffering;  I 
am  to  be  overwhelmed  with  sorrow.  Mr.  Dod- 
dridge paraphrases  it  thus:  "  I  have  indeed  a 
most  dreadful  baptism  to  be  baptized  with,  and 
know  that  I  shall  shortly  be  bathed  as  it  were 


RESTRICTED    COMMUNION.  3? 

in  blood,  and  plunged  in  the  most  overwhelm- 
ing distress."  This  prediction  was  verified  in 
the  mournful  hour,  when  bearing  the  sin  of 
many,  "  his  soul  was  exceeding  sorrowful, 
even  unto  death."  But  we  pass  on  to  no- 
tice, 

3.  The  history  of  the  church,  as  furnishing 
satisfactory  evidence  that  baptism  is  immer- 
sion; or  that  this  was  the  uniform  practice  of 
the  primitive  churches  up  to  the  time  of  the 
apostles.  There  have  not  been  wanting  those 
who,  in  opposing  the  divinely  instituted  ordi- 
nance of  baptism  or  immersion,  have  repre- 
sented it  as  of  comparatively  recent  origin.  It 
has  been  traced  to  the  madmen  of  Munster,  or 
but  little  farther  back  in  the  history  of  the 
church.  But  the  reader  will  permit  me  to  fur- 
nish testimony  which  the  most  reluctant  must 
admit  to  be  irrefragable,  sustaining  the  posi- 
tion that  immersion  was  generally  practiced 
for  several  hundred  years  from  the  days  of 
John  the  Baptist.  The  evidence  to  be  adduced 
will  be  from  such  as  cannot  be  accused  of  par- 
tiality towards  those  who  now  practise  immer- 
sion. It  is  mostly  from  the  pens  of  eminent 
Pedo-baptist  historians  and  critics. 


38  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 

« 

In  referring  to  Haweis'  "  impartial  and  suc- 
cinct" Church  History,  I  find  that  he  says  no- 
thing respecting  the  peculiar  actperformed  in 
the  iniatory  ordinance,  until  he  reaches  the 
second  century,  and  then  he  represents  it  as 
being  "  immersion."  Vol.  I,  page  184.  Mr. 
Haweis  was  a  highly  respectable  Pedo-baptist, 
of  the  Independent  order.' 

Dr.  Mosheim,  a  celebrated  ecclesiastical  his- 
torian, and  a  Pedo-baptist,  furnishes  the  follow- 
ing testimony:  "  Christ  himself  desired  to  be 
solemnly  baptized  in  the  waters  of  Jordan." 
Eeferring  to  the  first  century  he  says:  "  The 
sacrament  of  baptism  was  administered  in 
this  century,  without  the  public  assemblies,  in 
places  appointed  and  prepared  for  that  pur- 
pose, and  was  performed  by  an  immersion  of 
the  whole  body  in  the  baptismal  font."  In  the 
second  century,  he  testifies  that  the  persons 
baptized  "  were  immersed  under  water  and  re- 
ceived into  Christ's  Kingdom  by  a  solemn  in- 
vocation of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,"  etc. 

Dr.  William  Cave,  an  author  of  considerable 
celebrity  in  the  Episcopal  Church  of  England, 
in  his  work,  entitled  "  Primitive  Christianity, 
or  the  religion  of  the  ancient  Christians,"  gives 


RESTRICTED    COMMUNION.  39 

the  following  information:  "The  party  to  be 
baptized  was  wholly  immerged  or  put  under 
water,  which  was  the  almost  constant  and 
universal  custom  of  those  times,  whereby  they 
did  more  notably  and  significantly  express  the 
three  great  ends  and  effects  of  baptism ;  for  as 
in  immersion,  there  are  in  a  manner  three  sev- 
eral acts;  the  putting  a  person  into  water,  his 
abiding  there  for  a  little  time,  and  his  rising 
up  again;  so  by  these  were  represented 
Christ's  death,  burial,  and  resurrection,  and  in 
conformity  thereto,  our  dying  unto  sin,  the  de- 
struction of  its  power,  and  our  resurrection  to 
a  new  course  of  life."  *  *  *  *  *  "  But 
though  by  reason  of  the  more  eminent  signi- 
ficancy  of  these  things,  immersion  was  the  com- 
mon practice  in  those  clays,  and  therefore  they  earn- 
estly urged  it,  and  pleaded  for  it,  yet  did  they 
not  hold  sprinkling  unlawful,  especially  in 
cases  of  necessity,  as  of  weakness,  danger  of 
death,"  etc.  He  then  cites  Cyprian,  who  lived 
two  hundred  and  fifty  years  after  Christ,  as 
authority  for  the  lawfulness  of  sprinkling  in 
extreme  cases. 

Bossuet,  a  distinguished  French  bishop  of 
the  Catholic  church,  and  of  high  repute  as  a 


40  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 

pious  man,  writes:  "  The  baptism  of  John  the 
Baptist,  which  served  for  a  preparative  to  that 
of  Jesus  Christ,  was  performed  by  plunging. 
When  Jesus  Christ  came  to  John  to  raise  bap- 
tism to  a  marvellous  efficacy  in  receiving  it, 
the  scripture  says,  that  he  went  up  out  of  the 
water  of  Jordan.  Matthew,  iii:  16,  Mark,  i: 
10.  In  fine,  we  read  not  in  the  scriptures  that 
baptism  was  otherwise  administered,  and  we 
are  able  to  make  it  appear  by  the  acts  of  coun- 
cils, and  by  the  ancient  rituals,  that  for  thir- 
teen hundred  years,  baptism  was  thus  adminis- 
tered throughout  the  whole  church,  as  far  as 
was  possible." 

Dr.  Whitby,  a  Pedo-baptist  commentator,  in 
his  remarks  on  Romans,  vi:  4,  and  Colos.  ii: 
12,  remarks,  "  It  being  so  expressly  declared 
here  that  we  are  buried  with  Christ,  in  bap- 
tism, by  being  buried  under  water  *  *  * 
and  this  immersion  being  religiously  observed 
by  all  Christians  for  thirteen  centuries,  and 
approved  by  our  Church,  and  the  change  of  it 
into  sprinkling,  even  without  any  allowance 
from  the  author  of  this  institution,"  etc. 

Mr.  Wesley,  in  his  journal,  while  in  Geor- 
gia, makes  this  note:  "  Mary  Welsh,  aged  ele- 


RESTRICTED    COMMUNION.  41 

ven  days,  was  baptized  according  to  the  custom 
of  the  first  Church,  and  the  rule  of  the  Church 
of  England,  by  immersion."  He  also  testifies 
in  his  note  on  Romans,  vi:  "  Buried  with  him; 
alluding  to  the  ancient  manner  of  baptizing  by 
immersion^ 

Mr.  Calvin  on  John,  iii:  23,  remarks:  "Here 
we  perceive  how  baptism  was  administered 
among  the  ancients;  for  they  immersed  the 
whole  body  in  water." 

To  these  witnesses  on  ecclesiastical  history, 
permit  me  to  subjoin  the  evidence  of  two  or 
three  eminent  German  critics,  all  of  whom 
were  Pedo-baptists.  "In  order,"  says  Tholuck, 
"to  understand  the  figurative  use  of  baptism, 
we  must  bear  in  mind  the  well  known  fact, 
that  the  candidate  was  immersed  in  water 
and  raised  out  of  it  again." 

Winer  observes,  "  In  the  apostolic  age, 
baptism  was  by  immersion,  as  its  symbolical 
explanation  shows." 

J.  H.  Fritsch  says:  "With  infant  baptism, 
still  another  change  in  the  outward  form  of 
baptism  was  introduced — that  of  sprinkling 
with  water,  instead  of  the  former  practice  of 
immersion." 


42  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 

While  on  this  point,  allow  me  also  to  call 
attention  to  an  extract  from  the  reply  of  Pro- 
fessor Ripley,  to  Stuart  on  baptism,  a  work 
admirable,  alike  for  the  candor  and  ability  with 
which  it  is  written:  "  What  was  the  mode  of 
baptism  practised  by  the  churches  in  the  ear- 
ly ages  of  Christianity,  and  AFTER  the 
times  of  the  apostles?  That  it  was  immersion, 
Professor  Stuart  renders  clear  by  a  sufficient 
number  of  extracts  from  early  writers.  These 
extracts  are  made  from  the  Pastor  of  Hermas, 
one  of  the  earliest  uninspired  remains  after 
the  times  of  the  apostles,  from  Justin  Mar- 
tyr, who  flourished  in  the  second  century, 
Tertullian,  who  died  A.D.  200,  Chrysostom, 
Ambrose,  Augustine,  Dionysius  Areopagita, 
Gregory  Nyssen,  Damascenus,  and  several 
others.  After  exhibiting  these  testimonies, 
Mr.  Stuart  thus  proceeds:  '  But  enough.  It  is, 
says  Augusti,  (Denkw,  vii:  p.  216,)  a  thing 
made  out,  viz:  the  ancient  practice  of  immer- 
sion. So  indeed  all  the  writers  who  had  tho- 
roughly investigated  this  subject  conclude.  I 
know  of  no  one  usage  of  ancient  times,  which 
seems  to  be  more  clearly  and  certainly  made 


RESTRICTED    COMMUNION.  43 

out.  I  cannot  see  how  it  is  possible  for  any 
candid  man,  who  examines  the  subject,  to 
deny  this.' 

"There  is  also  presented  another  extract 
from  the  same  work  of  Augusti,  in  which  is 
stated  the  result  to  which  F.  Brenner,  a  Ro- 
man Catholic  writer  came,  in  view  of  the  his- 
torical facts;  namely,  thirteen  hundred  years 
was  baptism  generally  and  ordinarily  perform- 
ed by  the  immersion  of  a  man  under  water; 
and  only  in  extraordinary  cases  was  sprinkling 
or  affusion  permitted.  These  latter  methods 
of  baptism  were  called  in  question,  and  even 
prohibited. 

"Again,  in  the  work  of  John  Floyer,  on 
bathing,  p.  50,  it  is  mentioned  that  the  Eng- 
lish church  practiced  immersion  down  to  the 
beginning  of  the  seventeenth  century,  when 
a  change  to  the  method  of  sprinkling  gradu- 
ally took  place.  As  a  confirmation  of  this,  it 
may  be  mentioned,  that  the  first  liturgy  in 
1547,  injoins  a  trine  immersion,  in  case  the 
child  is  not  sickly.     Augusti  ut  supra,  p.  229. 

"  The  Oriental  church,  too,  that  is,  the  Greek 
church,  it  is  mentioned,  has  always  continued 


44  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 

to  preserve  immersion,  even  down  to  the  pre- 
sent time." 

As  farther  and  more  distinct  evidence  re- 
specting the  practice  of  the  early  churches, 
I  introduce  extracts  from  a  few  of  those  prom- 
inent ancient  writers  referred  to  by  Professor 
Stuart. 

Justin  Martyr,  who  flourished  in  the  second 
century  says:  "  Those  who  believe  are  led  to 
some  place  where  there  is  water,  and  there 
bathe  in  the  water."  In  another  place,  he 
says:  "We  represent  our  Lord's,  sufferings 
and  resurrection  by  baptism  in  a  pool." 

Tertullian,  who  lived  about  the  commence- 
ment of  the  third  century,  remarks:  "We  are 
immersed  in  water."  "  Let  down  into  the  wa- 
ter and  dipped."  "  Peter  immersed  in  the  Ti- 
ber." 

Basil  of  Cesarea,  who  belonged  to  the  fourth 
century,  in  one  of  his  discourses,  thus  speaks: 
"  How  can  we  be  placed  in  a  condition  of  like- 
ness to  Christ's  death?  By  being  buried  with 
him  in  baptism  *  *  *  *  How  are  we  to 
go  down  with  him  into  the  grave?  By  imita- 
ting the  burial  of  Christ  in  baptism,  for  the 


RESTRICTED    COMMUNION.  45 

bodies  of  the  baptized  are  in  a  sense  buried 
in  water.  For  this  reason  the  apostle  speaks 
figuratively  of  baptism,  as  a  laying  aside  the 
works  of  the  flesh  *  *  *  *  We  have 
experienced  one  death  to  the  world,  and  one 
resurrection  from  the  death,  of  which  baptism 
is  a  figure.  For  this  purpose  the  Lord,  the 
giver  of  life,  hath  instituted  baptism  a  repre- 
sentation of  both  life  and  death,  the  water 
overflowing  as  an  image  of  death,"  etc. 

About  the  year  400,  Chrysostom  thus  de- 
scribes the  ordinance  of  baptism:  ''The  candi- 
dates for  baptism  spent  thirty  days  in  prepar- 
ing for  that  sacred  bath;  before  they  were 
baptized  they  made  the  following  confessions: 
I  renounce  thee,  satan,  and  thy  pomp,  and  thy 
worship,  and  am  joined  to  thee,  0  Christ.  To 
which  they  were  ordered  to  subjoin:  I  believe 
in  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.  After  which, 
they  were  three  times  immersed  in  the  flood." 
In  his  works,  Chrysostom  frequently  al- 
ludes to  the  act  of  immersion. 

Similar  testimony  might  be  adduced  from 
multitudes  of  the  early  writers,  but  that  al- 
ready quoted  will  suffice.  From  all  that  has 
been  said,  and  from  the  evidence  furnished  by 
5 


46  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 

the  whole  history  of  the  church,  we  learn  that 
for  several  centuries,  extreme  cases  excepted, 
it  was  the  uniform  practice  to  immerse.  So 
far  as  we  can  gather  the  facts  at  this  remote 
period,  it  may  be  stated  that  the  first  instances 
of  sprinkling  occurred  in  Africa,  in  the  third 
centmryj  but  these  only  were  allowed  in  sea- 
sons of  extreme  illness,  and  the  persons  thus 
sprinkled,  were  called  clinics.  These  cases 
created  considerable  disputation,  and  by  the 
most  enlightened,  were  regarded  as  unbaptiz- 
ed.  In  all  parts  of  the  Christian  world,  im- 
mersion was  still  the  general  practice,  until, 
in  France,  during  the  eighth  century,  frequent 
changes  from  immersion  to  pouring,  and  then 
to  sprinkling,  began  to  be  allowed.  "While 
Pope  Stephen  III.  in  T54,  was  an  exile  in 
France,  to  escape  the  dangers  threatened  the 
city  of  Rome  by  the  king  of  the -Lombards,  he 
was  consulted  by  some  monks  on  several 
questions;  among  others — "Whether  in  the 
sickness  of  an  infant,  it  was  lawful  to  baptize 
by  pouring  water  out  of  the  hand,  or  a  cup, 
on  the  head."  To  this  inquiry,  Stephen  re- 
plied; that  if  such  necessity  existed,  such  a 
baptism   in   the   name   of  the  Holy   Trinity, 


RESTRICTED    COMMUNION.  41 

should  "be  held  valid.  The  distinguished 
James  Basnage,  in  one  of  his  learned  works, 
referring  to  the  canons  of  Pope  Stephen  III., 
thus  speaks  of  this  decision;  "Although  it  is 
accounted  the  first  law  for  sprinkling,  yet  it 
doth  not  forbid  dipping;  that  it  allows  sprink- 
ling only  in  cases  of  imminent  danger;  that 
the  authenticity  of  it  is  denied  by  many  Catho- 
lics; that  many  laws  were  made  after  this 
time  in  Germany,  France  and  England,  to 
compel  dipping,  and  without  any  provision  for 
cases  of  necessity:  therefore,  that  this  law  did 
not  alter  the  mode  of  dipping  in  public  bap- 
tisms: and  that  it  was  not  till  five  hundred 
and  fifty  years  after,  that  the  legislature  in  a 
council  at  Ravenne,  in  1311,  declared  dipping 
or  sprinkling  indifferent." 

I  will  here  introduce  the  sentiments  of  a  few 
distinguished  Catholics  in  relation  to  this 
change  of  the  ordinance.  The  celebrated  an- 
tiquary, Paul  Maria  Paciandi,  in  his  volume  of 
Christian  Antiquities,  published  by  authori- 
ty of  the  pope,  in  1155,  speaks  of  two  baptist- 
eries at  Kavenna,  where  the  artists  represent 
John  the  Baptist  as  pouring  water  on  the 
head  of  Jesus.      "Nothing  he  exclaims,   can 


48  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 

be  more  monstrous  than  these  emblems.  Was 
our  Lord  Christ  baptised  by  aspersion  ?  Noth- 
ing can  be  more  opposite  to  truth." 

Dr.  De  Vicecomes  of  Milan,  of  high  repute 
in  the  Catholic  church,  says:  "I  will  never 
cease  to  profess  and  teach  that  only  immersion 
in  water,  except  in  cases  of  necessity,  is  law- 
ful baptism  in  the  church.  I  will  refute  that 
false  notion,  that  baptism  was  administered 
in  the  primitive  church,  by  pouring  or  sprink- 
ling." 

Father  Mabillon,  another  Catholic  writer, 
remarks:  that  although  there  is  mention  in 
the  life  of  S.  Liudger,  cf  baptizing  an  infant 
by  pouring  on  holy  water,  yet  it  was  contrary 
to  an  express  canon  of  the  ninth  century;  con- 
trary to  the  canon  given  by  Stephen,  which 
allowed  pouring  only  in  cases  of  necessity; 
contrary  to  the  general  practice  in  France, 
where  trine  immersion  was  used,  contrary  to 
the  practice  of  the  Spaniards,  who  used  single 
immersion;  and  contrary  to  the  practice  of 
many  who  continued  to  dip  till  the  fifteenth 
century. 

Lewis  Anthony  Muratori,  celebrated  for  his 
learning  and  research,  exclaims  in  allusion  to 


RESTRICTED    COMMUNION.  49 

trine  immersion  as  practised  by  the  followers 
of  St.  Ambrose;  "Observe  the  Ambrosian 
method  of  baptizing;  they  do  not  baptize  by 
pouring  as  Romans  do,  but  taking  the  infant 
in  their  hands,  they  dip  the  hinder  part  of  his 
head  three  times  in  the  baptismal  water ; 
which  is  a  vestige  yet  remaining  of  the  most 
ancient  and  universal  practice  of  immersion." 
We  thus  perceive  that  in  the  Romish  church, 
immersion  gradually  gave  place  to  pouring, 
or  sprinkling. 

With  regard  to  the  English  church,  it  is 
known  that  the  liturgy  of  Edward  VI.,  required 
the  child  to  be  dipped  three  times  in  the  font, 
and  more  recently  the  rubric  instructs  that 
the  child  "  shall  be  warily  dipped."  Bishop 
Cranmer,  who  lived  in  the  time  of  Edward  VI., 
in  a  sermon,  remarks,  "Baptisme  and  the  dyp- 
pyinge  into  the  water  doth  betoken  that  the 
olde  Adam  with  all  his  syne  and  evel  lustes 
ought  to  be  drowned  and  kylled  by  daily  con- 
trition and  repentance." 

The  Calvinist  Reformers  allowed  the  vali- 
dity of  dipping,  as  Calvin  says:  "  The  word 
baptize  signifies  to  immerse,  and  the  rite  of 
immersion     was     observed    by    the    ancient 


50  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 

church,"  but  they  inconsistently  practised 
sprinkling,  or  pouring. 

The  Greek  church,  as  before  stated,  have 
always  practised  immersion.  Mr.  Voltaire, 
the  French  infidel,  remarks:  "The  Greets, 
who  never  received  baptism  but  by  immersion, 
plunging  themselves  into  baptismal  tubs,  ha- 
ted the  Latins,  who  in  favor  of  the  Northern 
Christians,  introduced  that  rite  by  aspersion." 

I  will  sum  up  the  argument,  grounded  on 
the  history  of  the  church,  by  calling  attention 
to  the  distinct  testimony  given  by  two  or 
three  standard  works,  not  merely  in  regard  to 
the  antiquity  of  the  practice  of  immersion,  but 
to  the  period  token  it  was  changed  into  sprinkling 
or  pouring. 

The  Encyclopedia  Americana,  on  the  article 
entitled  Baptism,  states:  "  In  the  time  of  the 
apostles,  the  form  of  baptism  was  very  simple. 
The  person  to  be  baptized  was  dipped  in  a 
river  or  vessel,  with  the  words  which  Christ 
had  ordered,  and  to  express  more  fully  his 
change  of  character,  generally  adopted  a  new 
name.  The  immersion  of  the  whole  body  was 
omitted  only  in  case  of  the  sick  who  could  not 
leave  their  beds.     In  this  case  sprinkling  was 


RESTRICTED    COMMUNION.  51 

substituted,  which  was  called,  clinic  baptism. 
The  Greek  church,  as  well  as  the  schismatics 
in  the  East,  retained  the  custom  of  immersing 
the  whole  body;  but  the  Western  church  adopted 
in  the  thirteenth  century  the  mode  of  sprinkling, 
which  has  been  continued  by  the  Protestants, 
the  Baptists  only  excepted." 

The  Edinburg  Encyclopedia,  (edited  by  Sir 
David  Brewster,  who  is  distinguished  for  his 
learning,)  on  the  subject  of  baptism,  has  these 
words:  "The  word  baptizo  means  to  immerse, 
or  Paul  would  never  have  said,  that  we  are 
buried  with  Christ  by  baptism.  Immersion  was 
practised  by  all  Christians  until  the  beginning  of 
the  fourteenth  century.  The  council  of  Ravenna, 
held  in  1311,  first  sanctioned  sprinkling,  but 
corrupt  as  was  the  church  of  Rome,  whose 
counsel  this  was,  it  did  not  enjoin  sprinkling, 
but  merely  said,  that  it  was  admissible." 

The  Encyclopedia  Ecclesiastica,  published 
under  the  patronage  of  the  most  distinguished 
men  in  Great  Britain,  thus  refers  to  the  argu- 
ments in  favor  of  sprinkling.  "  Whatever 
weight,  however,  may  be  in  these  reasons,  as 
a  defence  for  the  present  practice  of  sprink- 
ling, it  is  evident,  that  during  the  first  ages  of 


52  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 

the  church,  and  for  many  centuries  afterwards, 
the  practice  of  immersion  prevailed,  and  which 
seems  never  to  be  departed  from,  except  where 
it  was  to  be  administered  to  a  person  at  the 
point  of  death,  or  upon  a  bed  of  sickness, 
which  was  considered  indeed,  as  not  giving 
the  party  the  full  privileges  of  baptism,  or 
when  there  was  not  a  sufficient  supply  of  wa- 
ter. Except  in  the  above  cases,  the  custom 
was  to  dip,  or  immerse  the  whole  body  into 
water." 

Dr.  Neander,  one  of  the  most  distinguished 
German  critics,  and  a  Pedo-baptist  thus  testi- 
fies: ''Baptism  was  originally  administered  by 
immersion,  and  many  of  the  comparisons  of  St. 
Paul  alluded  to  this  form  of  administration; 
the  immersion  is  a  symbol  of  death,  of  being 
buried  with  Christ;  the  coming  forth  from  the 
water  is  a  symbol  of  a  resurrection  with 
Christ,  and  both  taken  together  represent  the 
second  birth,  the  death  of  the  old  man,  and  a 
resurrection  to  a  new  life." 

I  have  been  thus  particular  in  these  cita- 
tions, not  because  I  suppose  them  necessary 
to  make  out  the  divine  authority  of  immersion. 
If  the  history  of  the  churches  from  the  times 


RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 


53 


of  the  apostles,  were  now  a  perfect  blank,  we 
should  still  find  our  warrant  to  immerse  be- 
lievers sufficiently  clear  from  the  pages  of  the 
New  Testament.  But  the  fact  is  an  interest- 
ing one,  and  important  in  the  argument  before 
us,  that  such  an  array  of  testimony  in  favor 
of  immersion,  is  furnished  from  history,  and 
that  too  from  the  pens  of  pious  and  learned 
Pedo-baptists.  This  testimony  not  only  goes 
to  prove  the  general  practice  of  immersion  by 
all  professing  Christians  for  several  hundred 
years,  but  the  sentiment  entertained  by  them, 
that  this  practice  was  to  be  traced  to  the  age 
of  Christ  and  his  apostles. 

4.  I  must  now  call  attention  to  the  signifi- 
cation of  the  original  word.  By  this,  we  are 
to  determine  the  precise  action  required  in  the 
initiatory  ordinance.  It  constitutes  our  chief 
argument.  If  the  word  has  a  uniformly  defi- 
nite meaning,  we  surely  cannot  be  at  a  loss  to 
ascertain  it.  To  this  examination,  the  reader 
is  invited. 

Our  term  baptism  is  a  Greek  word  (bap- 
tisma)  with  an  English  termination,  from 
baptizo,  a  derivative  of  bapto.  The  word  em- 
ployed in  the  New   Testament  in  relation  to 


54  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION, 

the  ordinance  is  not  bapto,  but  baptizo.  Let 
this  be  distinctly  kept  in  mind.  In  the 
baptismal  controversy,  the  words  have  been 
too  often  confounded,  and  thus  the  true  merits 
of  the  question  have  not  been  perceived. — 
Baptizo  is  not  a  sacred  word,  coined  for  the 
occasion  by  Christ,  but  a  term  of  frequent  oc- 
currence in  all  the  Greek  classic  writers.  In 
its  scriptural  use  it  is  to  be  received  in  its 
ordinary  acceptation.  We  have  no  informa- 
tion that  it  is  to  be  understood  in  any  other 
way.  The  question  now  arises:  has  this  word 
a  specific  meaning?  I  answer,  most  unques- 
tionably. Its  signification  is  as  definite  and 
limited  as  that  of  any  word  in  the  Greek 
language.  Mergo  in  the  Latin  and  dip  in  the 
English,  are  not  more  so.  What  then  is  the 
precise  import  ? 

To  arrive  at  correct  conclusions  in  this  in- 
vestigation, it  will  be  necessary  to  examine 
the  use  of  the  word  by  Greek  authors,  both 
sacred  and  profane,  and  the  signification  given 
by  the  best  lexicographers.  The  term  bapto 
signifies  to  dip,  to  plunge,  to  overwhelm;  in 
a  secondary  sense,  to  d}7e,  because  this  action 
implies  and  includes  the  act  of  dipping.     In 


RESTRICTED    COMMUNION.  55 

some  instances  the  word  was  ultimately  ap- 
plied to  dyeing  of  any  kind.  Its  primary 
meaning  then,  and  the  same  in  which  it  is 
universally  used,  excepting  when  it  has  refe- 
rence to  dyeing,  is  covering  over,  plunging, 
etc.  Bapto,  however,  is  not  the  word  in  ques- 
tion, but  its  derivative,  baptizo,  which  is  never 
used  in  this  secondaiy  sense.  Its  universal 
application,  by  all  Greek  authors,  is  confined, 
literally,  or  figuratively,  to  the  idea  of  dip- 
ping, plunging,  or  overwhelming.  It  would 
not  be  appropriate,  with  our  brief  limits,  to 
introduce  its  examples  to  sustain  this  asser- 
tion. Mr.  Carson,  distinguished  for  his  learn- 
ing, says:  "Baptizo,  in  the  whole  history  of 
the  Greek  language,  has  but  one  meaning." 
He  then  furnishes  a  copious  list  of  examples 
from  various  Greek  authors,  and  challenges 
the  learned  world  to  find  any  instances  in 
which  it  can  be  tortured  to  signify  pouring  or 
sprinkling.  Mr.  Jevvett,  late  professor  of  Ma- 
rietta College,  Ohio,  and  a  minister  of  the 
Presbyterian  church,  by  a  careful  examina- 
tion of  this  subject,  was  compelled  to  abandon 
his  position  as  a  Pedo-baptist,  and  to  be  im- 
mersed.    In  his   little  work  on  baptism,  he 


56  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 

remarks,  "If  any  person  is  disposed  to  ques- 
tion this,"  that  baptizo  signifies  to  immerse, 
"  he  can  satisfy  himself  by  examining  places 
in  which  the  words  occur  in  the  Greek.  In 
about  two  hundred  passages,  taken  at  random, 
when  these  words  are  employed  in  their  pri- 
mary and  proper  sense,  the  idea  is  in  every  in- 
stance, to  dip,  to  plunge,  to  immerse.  I  here 
repeat  the  remark,  that  in  its  literal  and  pro- 
per sense,  baptizo  never  means  anything  but 
to  immerse,  dip  or  plunge;  and  when  used  in 
a  figurative  application,  the  figure  entirely 
depends  for  its  force  and  beauty  on  the  prima- 
ry idea  of  immersion.  If  erroneous,  these  po- 
sitions can  easily  be  disproved  by  a  reference 
to  the  original  classics.  But  adding  my  own 
labors  to  those  of  the  writers,  whose  works  I 
have  examined,  I  have  never  been  able  to  dis- 
cover a  single  passage,  which  authorizes  me 
to  abandon  the  ground  just  taken." 

Let  us  now  turn  our  attention  to  the  voice 
of  lexicographers,  respecting  the  signification 
of  baptizo,  the  word  rendered  in  the  English, 
baptize. 

Dr.  John  Jones. — Baptizo — I  plunge;  I 
plunge  in  water,  dip,  bury,  overwhelm. 


RESTRICTED    COMMUNION.  57 

Richardson's  English  Lexicon. — To  dip,  or 
merge  frequently;  to  sink,  to  plunge,  to  im- 
rnerge. 

Donnegan. — To  immerse,  submerge,  satu- 
rate, drench,  etc. 

Parkhurst. — To  dip,  immerse,  submerge, 
plunge, 

Schleusener. — To  immerse,  to  plunge,  to 
sink  into  water. 

Pickering. — To  dip,  immerse,  submerge, 
pluDge,  sink. 

Greenfield. — To  immerse,  immerge,  sub- 
merge, sink;  and  referring  to  Mark,  vii:  4,  to 
wash,  perform  ablution,  cleanse,  (these  last 
doubtless  including  the  idea  of  dipping.) 

Wilson's  Christian  Dictionary. — To  baptize, 
to  dip  into  water,  or  to  plunge  one  into  the 
water. 

Young. — To  dip  all  over,  to  wash,  to  bap- 
tize. 

Numerous  other  lexicons  might  be  refer- 
red to,  all  of  which  render  the  word  to  dip, 
plunge,  immerse;  wash,  as  its  radical  meaning, 
and  two  or  three  add,  to  sprinkle. 

To  these  authorities  universally  respected  in 
the  learned  world,  I  add  the  decision  of  se- 
6 


58  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 

vcral  distinguished  Pedo-baptist  critics  on 
the  use  of  the  word  baptizo  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament. 

Dr.  George  Campbell,  of  Edinburg,  on  the 
phrase,  "came  up  out  of  the  water,"  says, 
"Let  it  be  observed  further,  that  the  verbs 
raino  and  rantizo,  used  in  scripture  for  sprink- 
ling, are  never  construed  in  this  manner. — 
When  therefore,  the  Greek  word  baptizo  (ren- 
dered I  baptize)  is  adopted,  I  may  say  rather 
than  translated  into  modern  languages,  the 
mode  of  construction  ought  to  be  preserved 
so  far  as  may  conduce  to  suggest  its  original 
import.  It  is  to  be  regretted,  when  we  have 
so  much  evidence  that  even  good  and  learned 
men,  allow  their  judgments  to  be  warped  by 
the  sentiments  and  customs  of  the  sects  they 
prefer."  Referring  to  the  meaning  of  the 
word,  he  says,  "Both  in  sacred  authors  and  in 
classical,  it  signifies  to  dip,  to  plunge,  to  im- 
merse." 

Luther  determines,  that,  "baptism  is  a 
Greek  word,  and  may  be  translated  immersion, 
as  when  we  immerse  something  in  water,  that 
it  may  be  wholly  covered.  And  although  it 
is  almost  wholly   abolished,   for  they  do  not 


RESTRICTED    COMMUNION.  59 

dip  the  whole  children,  but  only  pour  a  little 
water  on  them,  they  ought,  nevertheless,  to 
be  wholly  immersed,  and  then  immediately 
drawn  out,  for  that  the  etymology  of  the  word 
seems  to  demand." 

Again  he  says,  "  I  would  have  those  that 
are  to  be  baptised  to  be  altogether  dipt  into 
the  water,  as  the  word  doth  sound." 

Beza. — "  To  be  baptised  in  water,  signifies 
no  other  than  to  be  immersed  in  water." 

Dr.  Porson,  a  celebrated  Greek  scholar  of 
London,  assured  Dr.  Cox  that  the  word  "  sig- 
nified a  total  immersion." 

Dr.  Chalmers. — "  The  original  meaning  of 
the  word  baptism,  is  immersion." 

Calvin. — "  The  word  baptise  signifies  to  im- 
merse." 

Buttmann,  in  his  large  Greek  grammar,  puts 
iown  bapto,  to  immerse. 

The  Confession  of  Faith  prepared  by  Melanc- 
thon,  and  adopted  by  the  Saxon  churches, 
contains  these  words,  "Baptism  is  an  entire 
action;  to  wit:  a  dipping,  and  a  pronouncing 
of  these  words,  I  baptize  thee,"  etc. 

Professor  Stuart,  of  Andovcr,  inquires,  "  In 
what  manner,  then,  did  the  churches  of  Christ, 


60  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 

from  a  very  early  period,  to  say  the  least,  un- 
derstand the  word  baptizo  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment ?  Plainly,  they  construed  it  as  meaning' 
immersion.  They  sometimes  even  went  so  far 
as  to  forbid  any  other  method  of  administering 
the  ordinance,  cases  of  necessity  and  mercy 
only  excepted.  *  *  *  *  We  are  left  in  no 
doubt  as  to  the  more  generally  received  usage 
of  the  Christian  church  down  to  a  period  seve- 
ral centuries  after  the  apostolic  age.  *  *  *  * 
That  the  Greek  Fathers,  and  the  Latin  ones 
who  were  familiar  with  the  Greek  (language), 
understood  the  usual  import  of  the  word  bap- 
tizo, would  hardly  seem  to  be  capable  of  a 
denial." 

With  respect  to  the  authorities  which  have 
been  introduced  to  sustain  our  position,  that 
the  original  word  signifies  to  immerse,  it  may 
be  said,  that  they  occupy  a  commanding  emi- 
nence in  the  literary  and  religious  world. 
They  are  competent  judges  in  determining  the 
question.  They  were  not  only  learned  men, 
but  most  of  them  inured  to  habits  of  rigid  in- 
vestigation. By  their  profession  main'  of  them 
were  compelled  to  carry  not  only  their  thoughts 
but  their  language   through   a  most  careful 


RESTRICTED    COMMUNION.  61 

scrutiny.  Their  character  as  philologists  is 
unimpeachable.  But  besides  this,  they  were 
connected  with  sects  that  did  not  practice 
immersion.  They  could  not  therefore  be  ac- 
cused of  prejudice  and  partiality  in  forming 
their  judgment.  The  decision  they  gave  was 
in  direct  contrariety  to  the  custom  of  the 
churches  to  which  they  belonged,  and  in  spite 
of  early  predilections  and  party  influences. 
They  were  men  who  would  neither  violate 
their  consciences,  nor  hazard  their  reputation 
for  sound  learning,  by  indolently  pursuing 
their  inquiries,  or  declining  candidly  to  state 
the  conclusions  at  which  they  arrived.  You 
should  remember  too,  m}^  brethren,  the  weight 
of  these  authorities  as  it  relates  to  their  num- 
ber. The  judgment  given  by  the  above  cited 
philologists  is  the  almost  uniform  decision  of 
the  learned  world.  Smatterers  in  knowledge, 
or  those  warped  by  sectarian  prejudices,  may 
determine  differently,  but  in  doing  this,  they 
only  subject  themselves  to  the  just  rebuke  of 
the  discerning  and  candid. 

To  determine  still  farther  the  soundness  of 
the  views  of  these  eminent  critics  on  the  mean- 
ing of  the  original  word,  reference  should  be 


62  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 

made  to  various  approved  translations  of  the 
scriptures.  The  New  Testament  translated 
into  the  Persian,  Ethiopic,  Arabic,  Syrian,  Ar- 
menian, German,  Dutch,  Danish,  and  Swedish 
languages,  has  baptizo  rendered  by  some  word 
signifying  to  immerse. 

I  will  here  present  the  testimony  of  that 
distinguished  critic  and  scholar,  Mr.  Green- 
field, who,  in  referring  to  the  withdrawal  of 
aid  from  the  Serampore  translation  by  the 
British  and  Foreign  Bible  Societ}^,  insists,  that 
when  Dr.  Carey  and  his  colleagues  rendered 
baptizo  by  a  phrase  signifying-  to  immerse, 
they  discharged  a  solemn  duty.  He  contended 
that  the  phrase  rendered  was  idiomatic;  that 
it  was  a  correct  rendering  of  the  word  baptizo, 
and  that  to  render  it  by  a  term  signifying  to 
immerse  was  in  accordance  with  established 
usage.  "  It  may  be  safely  affirmed  (he  re- 
marks) that  many  of  the  most  accurate  and 
valuable  versions,  both  ancient  and  modern, 
are  involved  in  the  same  accusation,  and  that 
there  is  no  one  which  isdirectly  hostile  to  that 
interpretation."  He  adds:  "  In  consistency, 
if  that  aid  (that  is,  of  the  British  and  Foreign 
Bible  Society)  be  withdrawn  from  the  Seram- 


RESTRICTED    COMMUNION.  63 

pore  missionaries,  because  they  have~rendered 
baptizo,  to  immerse,  then  must  it  also  be  with- 
drawn from  the  churches  of  Syria,  of  Arabia, 
of  Abyssinia,  of  Egypt,  of  Germany,  of  Hol- 
land, of  Denmark,  etc.;  and  the  venerable 
Peshito  Syriac  version,  the  Arabic  versions  of 
the  Propaganda,  of  Sabat,  etc.,  the  Ethiopian, 
the  Coptic,  and  other  versions  must  all  be  sup- 
pressed." Mr.  .Greenfield  was  an  Episcopalian. 
The  same  sentiment  is  expressed  by  F.  W. 
Gotch,  A.B.,  of  Trinity  College,  Dublin,  and 
a  member  of  the  Episcopalian  church,  in  "  a 
critical  examination  of  the  word  baptizo,  in 
the  ancient  and  many  of  the  modern  versions 
of  the  New  Testament,"  etc. 

Having  given  these  highly  respectable  au- 
thorities in  determining  the  question  that 
baptizo  signifies  to  immerse,  it  may  perhaps 
be  inquired  whether,  although  it  expresses  the 
idea  of  immersion,  it  cannot  also  be  used  to 
signify  sprinkling  or  pouring.  So  far  as  the 
usage  of  Greek  authors  may  assist  in  the  in- 
vestigation, it  is  answered  that  it  cannot,  ex- 
cepting in  a  few  cases  where  it  expresses  by 
heavy  sprinkling  or  pouring*,  a  complete  satu- 
ration, or  wetting  all  over. 


64  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 

Iu  these  cases,  it  is  figuratively  regarded 
as  an  immersion,  or  covering  with  water. 
That  this  is  the  definite  and  exclusive  signifi- 
cation of  the  word  all  eminent  lexicographers 
agree.  But  still,  it  may  be  asked,  is  not  the 
word  baptizo  used  in  the  New  Testament  to 
denote  sprinkling  or  pouring,  on  account  of 
the  barrenness  of  the  language,  there  being 
no  words  better  to  express  these  actions  ? 
Here,  again,  the  reply  is  ready.  The  Greek 
language  is  remarkable  for  its  copiousness. 
It  has  words  expressing  with  great  distinct- 
ness the  various  actions  to  be  performed  in  or 
with  water.  The  word  raino  and  rantizo  de- 
note the  act  of  sprinkling.  If  the  Saviour  had 
intended  to  command  the  application  of  water 
by  sprinkling,  the  terms  raino  and  rantizo 
would  have  been  peculiarly  appropriate.  The 
same  may  be  said  with  respeGt  to  the  use  of 
water  by  pouring.  This  action  is  denoted  by 
the  word  cheo.  Nipto  expresses  the  act  of 
washing  the  hand,  louo  to  wash  the  body, 
pluno  to  wash  garments,  &c.  If  any  one  will 
take  pains  to  examine  those  places  in  our  ver- 
sion of  the  New  Testament  in  which  the  word 
sprinkle  occurs,  he  will  discover  that  in  the 


RESTRICTED    COMMUNION".  65 

Greek  it  is  not  bapto  or  baptizo,  but  raino,  or 
the  compounds  of  clieo.  So  with  respect  to  the 
English  word  pour,  in  the  original  it  is  never 
bapto  or  baptizo,  but  chco,  or  some  other 
word.  In  all  those  places  in  which  the  word 
dip  is  found,  in  the  Greek  it  is  never  nipto, 
louo,  pluno,  cheo,  or  raino,  but  bapto,  or  bap- 
tizo ! 

Upon  this  point  Mr.  Shannon,  formerly  Pre- 
sident of  the  College  of  Louisiana,  and  more 
recently  of  the  State  University  of  Missouri, 
observes:  "  While  I  filled  the  Professorship  of 
Ancient  Languages  in  the  University  of 
Georgia,  I  had  occasion  to  compile  a  table  of 
passages  where  the  words  clip,  pour,  sprinkle, 
and  wash,  in  their  various  modifications  occur 
in  the  English  Bible,  with  the  corresponding 
term  used  in  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament, 
and  the  Septuagint. 

"  Dip  I  found  in  twenty-one  passages.  In 
all  of  these  except  one,  bapto  or  baptizo  is 
found  in  the  Greek. 

"The1  one  exception  is  in  Genesis,  xxxvii: 
21,  where  Joseph's  brethren  took  his  coat  and 
dipped — emolunam  (smeared  or  daubed)  it  in 
the  blood  of  a  kid.     Mark  the  accuracy  of  the 


66  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 

Greek  here;  the  idea  is  that  of  smearing-  or 
daubing,  and  the  Septuagint  so  expresses  it. 

11  Sprinkle  in  some  of  its  forms,  I  found  in 
twenty-seven  passages.  In  not  a  single  instance 
is  bapto  or  baptizo  used  in  the  Greek. 

"  Pour  I  found  in  no  less  than  one  hundred 
and  nineteeri  instances,  but  in  not  even  one  of 
them  did  I  meet  with  bapto  or  baptizo  in  the 
Greek. 

"  I  found  wash  in  thirty-two  cases  where 
reference  was  had  not  to  the  whole  person, 
but  to  a  part,  as  the  eyes,  the  face,  the  hands,  the 
ftet.  In  none  of  these  was  bapto  or  baptizo 
found." 

We  may  thus  determine  that  the  Divine 
Eedeemer,  in  selecting  the  word  baptizo  to 
denote  the  act  by  which  the  responsibilities  of 
his  kingdom  should  be  assumed,  chose  to 
make  it  as  explicit  as  possible,  leaving  no 
ground  for  prevarication  or  dispute.  If  he  had 
designed  to  leave  the  ground  open,  allowing 
his  followers  to  select  any  mode  of  using 
water,  according  as  convenience  or  inclination 
might  dictate,  other  words  might  have  been 
employed.  Either  the  word  agnizo,  to  purify; 
or  nipto,  to  wash  or  wet,  would  have  furnished 


RESTRICTED    COMMUNION.  67 

a  suitable  term  to  express  an  indefinite  action 
in  the  use  of  water.  Cleansing  or  wetting" 
might  have  been  effected  by  sprinkling,  pour- 
ing, or  immersion.  But  no  such  indefinite 
term  is  made  use  of  by  Christ  or  his  apostles, 
in  referring  to  the  ordinance,  but  one,  which, 
in  the  whole  range  of  Greek  literature,  is 
found  to  express  the  simple  idea  of  dipping  or 
plunging.  Will  not  every  candid  mind  irre- 
sistibly arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  immer- 
sion, and  immersion  alone,  is  Christian  bap- 
tism ?  But  I  will  come  to  another  point  in  the 
argument. 

5.  While  the  ordinance  consists  in  the  im- 
mersion of  the  body  in  water,  its  validity  is 
destroyed  by  any  other  action.  Immersion  is 
absolutely  essential  to  the  proper  and  acceptable 
'performance  of  the  initiatory  ordinance..  Those 
who  have  united  with  a  Christian  church  by 
sprinkling  or  pouring,  are  unbaptized,  and 
therefore  disobedient  to  the  express  command 
of  Him  whom  they  profess  to  love. 

This  part  of  our  subject  deserves  special 
consideration,  because  it  applies  with  peculiar 
force  to  thousands  of  excellent  Pedo-baptists, 
who  are  not  at  issue  with  us  in  the  preceding 


68  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 

part  of  the  argument.  When  such  men  as 
John  Calvin,  Martin  Luther,  George  Campbell, 
Philip  Doddridge,  and  many  others  in  the  pre- 
sent day,  contend  that  baptism  is  a  prerequi- 
site to  the  privileges  of  the  Lord's  table  and 
of  church  fellowship,  and  also,  that  baptism, 
according  to  Church  history  and  the  meaning 
of  the  original  word,  is  immersion,  how  do 
they  escape  the  conclusion  that  they  them- 
selves are  disorderly,  and  not  properly  entitled 
to  a  place  at  the  Lord's  table  ?  In  remaining 
unimmersed  their  conduct  is  certainly  incon- 
sistent, but  they  satisfy  their  consciences  by 
devices  which  we  now  seek  to  expose.  The 
Catholic  insists  that  the  church  is  empowered 
to  make  changes  in  the  laws  of  Jesus  Christ 
when  circumstances  may  seem  to  justify; 
hence  the  substitution  of  the  wafer  for  bread 
and  wine,  and  sprinkling  for  immersion.  But 
Protestant  Pedo-baptists  found  their  practice 
on  some  other  basis.  We  shall  briefly  consi- 
der their  arguments,  and  thus  sustain  the 
principle  that  immersion  is  essential  to  the 
validity  of  the  institution. 

The  first  which  we  will  name,  is  the  pretext 
that  while  immersion  was  the  action  prescribed 


RESTRICTED    COMMUNION.  69 

and  practiced  in  primitive  times,  it  was  rather 
in  accordance  with  the  frequent  ablutions  so 
common  in  the  East,  and  that  Christ  intended 
merely  the  application  of  water  as  essential  to 
the  ordinance.  In  reply,  we  may  say  that, 
according  to  the  argument  already  considered, 
the  word  which  was  employed  in  the  commis- 
sion refers  to  a  distinct  act,  a  burial,  an  im- 
mersion in  water.  That  the  lawgiver  had 
regard  merely  to  a  prevalent  custom  among 
the  Jews,  or  in  that  particular  part  of  the 
world,  remains  to  be  proved.  He  has  furnished 
no  information  to  warrant  such  an  inference. 
It  is  nothing  but  conjecture,  and  without  good 
reason  to  justify  it.  Is  there  the  slightest 
ground  upon  which  to  base  the  presumption 
that  the  quantity  of  water  used  is  unimport- 
ant ?     None,  absolutely  none. 

We  must  carefully  distinguish  between  what 
is  circumstantial  and  what  is  essential,  in  the 
ordinances.  Whatever  pertains  to  the  signi- 
fication or  design  is  necessary  to  the  institu- 
tion. The  supper  was  first  taken  in  an  upper 
room,  in  a  reclining  posture,  and  in  the  after- 
noon of  the  day.  They  made  use  of  unleavened 
bread.  All  these  were  mere  circumstances  hav- 
1 


70  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 

ing  no  immediate  connection  with  the  practical 
design  of  the  ordinance.  But  bread  and  wine 
are  essential  to  its  proper  celebration,  because 
they  are  the  emblems  selected  by  Christ  to 
designate  his  broken  body  and  shed  blood. 
This  bread  and  wine  they  were  required  to 
eat  and  drink  in  remembrance  of  him.  The 
Papists  have  stripped  this  institution  of  its 
essential  excellence  by  a  change  of  the  ele- 
ments, and  of  the  mode  of  partaking  them. 

Thus,  in  relation  to  baptism  there  are  many 
things  circumstantial  and  unimportant.  The 
time,  whether  day  or  night;  the  dress,  wheth- 
er in  the  usual  attire,  or  in  robes  prepared  for 
the  occasion;  the  artificial  pool  constructed 
from  the  running  brook,  or  the  deep  and  broad 
river;  these,  and  other  things  which  might  be 
mentioned,  are  far  from  being  important,  But 
take  away  immersion,  and  you  not  only  mar, 
but  destroy  the  ordinance,  because  you  de- 
prive it  of  its  significancy.  Both  the  ordinan- 
ces are  figurative,  and  both  derive  their  force 
and  solemnity  from  the  emblems  they  express. 
The  first  ordinance  is  intended  to  be  obeyed  by 
each  Christian  once,  and  this,  when  he  be- 
lieves, in  order  to  declare  the  fact  that  he  is  a 


RESTRICTED    COMMUNION.  71 

new  creature,  having  become  dead  to  sin,  and 
passed  away  from  the  old  world  or  state  of 
sin,  into  the  new  world  of  grace.  "  He  is 
buried  with  Christ  by  baptism,  into  death,  that 
like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead  by 
the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  he  also  should 
walk  in  newness  of  life."  While  his  death  to 
sin  and  rising  to  a  new  life  is  declared  by  bap- 
tism, so  also  is  it  emblematic  of  the  burial  and 
resurrection  of  Christ,  and  of  the  future  glo- 
rious resurrection  of  the  just.  The  second 
ordinance,  which  is  so  frequently  observed,  is 
also  emblematic;  for  in  it  believers  "  show 
forth  the  Lord's  death  till  he  come."  In  each 
of  these  institutions,  while  there  are  circum- 
stances which  may,  or  may  not  be  connected 
with  their  observance,  there  are  also  things 
essential,  as  without  them,  their  significancy 
and  design  would  be  utterly  lost. 

Another  reason  which  satisfies  many  minds 
in  a  departure  from  the  primitive  practice, 
arises  from  the  peculiar  genius  of  the  gospel 
dispensation.  The  glory  of  the  Jewish  econo- 
my consisted  in  its  numerous  types,  its  impos- 
ing forms  and  ceremonies.  Their  costly  and 
magnificent  observances  were  to  be  regarded 


T2  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 

in  every  particular  with  scrupulous  care,  and 
no  omission  could  occur,  without  subjecting 
the  offender  to  summary  punishment.  But  the 
kingdom  of  Christ  is  spiritual  in  its  charac- 
ter, requiring'  of  its  subjects  right  affections, 
rather  than  obedience  to  ceremonials.  This  is 
the  argument  of  the  class  to  which  we  now 
refer.  But  its  fallacy  will  at  once  appear,  when 
we  consider  that  although  the  Christian  ordi- 
nances are  few  and  simple,  they  nevertheless 
originated  in  the  will  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  are 
made  by  him  positively  binding  on  all  his  follow- 
ers. They  may  not  occupy  the  same  position 
in  the  scale  of  duties  with  repentance,  faith, 
and  love,  but  the}7  derive  their  authority  from 
the  same  source.  If  the  gospel  system  is  not 
distinctly  ceremonial,  whatever  ceremonies  are 
enjoined  should  more  readily  and  literally 
be  fulfilled.  Because  the  yoke  is  easy,  shall 
it  therefore  be  worn  with  less  pleasure?  If 
the  burden  be  light,  is  it  therefore  not  to  be 
borne?  Shall  the  eye  of  the  servant  be  evil, 
because  the  master  is  good?  God  indeed  looks 
at  the  heart,  and  by  its  exercises  determines 
the  character,  but  does  not  therefore  release 
his  people  from  the  obligation  to  obey  his  posi- 


RESTRICTED    COMMUNION.  T3 

tive  injunctions,  whether  they  be  ceremonial 
or  moral.  Baptism,  therefore,  or  immersion, 
is  a  solemn  duty,  devolving'  on  every  believer, 
and  without  immersion  he  fails  to  do  the  will 
of  his  Lord  in  regard  to  the  iniatory  institu- 
tion— he  is  still  unbaptized. 

Besides,  this  argument  which  makes  immer- 
sion as  the  precise  action  to  be  performed,  un- 
essential to  the  validity  of  the  ordinance, 
would  justify  an  entire  neglect  of  it.  If,  be- 
cause the  great  requirements  of  the  gospel  are 
spiritual,  and  relate  to  character,  it  is  there- 
fore unimportant  that  the  believer  be  immers- 
ed, then  it  would  follow  that  sprinkling,  pour- 
ing, or  any  act  might  also  be  omitted.  But 
this  act  of  immersion  cannot  be  unimportant, 
since  Christ  peremptorily  requires  it,  and  since 
it  is  the  most  expressive  symbol  of  great  facts 
in  the  death  of  the  believer  to  sin,  and  his  re- 
surrection to  a  new  life,  and  also  in  the  joyful 
resurrection  of  the  body  at  the  last  day. 

It  is  again  alleged  that  while  immersion 
was  the  primitive  practice,  the  improvement 
of  society  renders  sprinkling  and  pouring 
more  appropriate;  and  withal,  they  may  be 
performed  with  more  convenience,  both  to  the 


74  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 

subject  and  administrator.  This  is  an  objec- 
tion entertained  by  many  Pedo-baptists.  As 
an  answer,  we  still  urge  the  will  of  Christ  as 
explicit.  He  required  a  definite  action  to  be 
performed,  and  this  action  is  essential  to  the 
great  practical  design  of  the  ordinance.  If, 
however,  it  were  not  altogether  consistent 
with  the  refined  state  of  the  age,  and  were  at- 
tended with  some  sacrifice  of  ease  and  conven- 
ience, shall  the  believer  hesitate  to  exercise 
self-denial  in  obeying  Him,  who  endured  the 
cross,  despising  the  shame  that  sinners  might 
live?  Surely  not.  But  the  objection  has  its 
origin  in  a  morbid  sensibility.  The  serious 
beholder,  however  cultivated  his  taste  and 
manners,  will  never  find  any  thing  offensive 
in  the  proper  administration  of  baptism.  It 
is  admitted,  that  in  some  cases  there  has  not 
been  sufficient  regard  to  preparation  of  place 
and  dress,  but  this  is  no  argument  against  the 
ordinance  itself.  It  will  not  be  denied,  that 
in  the  sprinkling  or  pouring  of  infants,  cir- 
cumstances partaking  of  the  ludicrous  have 
occurred.  But  these  could  be  of  no  valid  ob- 
jection, if  the  act  were  divinely  authorized. 
The  immersion  of  a  believer  in  the  name  of  the 


RESTRICTED    COMMUNION.  15 

Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
is,  in  itself,  an  impressive  and  solemn  scene. 
I  have  known  almost  an  entire  assembly  deep- 
ly affected  as  the  Christian  has  been  slowly 
buried  beneath  the  yielding  wave,  in  token  of 
his  death  to  sin.  The  hearts  of  the  disciples 
have  been  cheered,  and  sinners  have  been 
awakened. 

As  an  evidence  that  the  ordinance  is  not  in 
itself  revolting  to  persons  of  refined  feelings, 
it  may  be  sufficient  simply  to  state,  that  while 
it  always  excites  a  general  interest  in  the 
community,  and  a  desire  to  witness  it,  no  per- 
son is  known  to  absent  himself  from  the  place 
because  he  fears  that  his  sensibilities  will  be 
shocked.  And  it  is  a  well  authenticated  fact 
that  thousands  have  dated  their  earliest  reli- 
gious impressions  at  these  baptismal  occa- 
sions. A  brother,  who  has  been  eminently  use- 
ful in  one  of  the  New  England  States,  in  a 
letter  published  in  the  Christian  Watchman, 
thus  remarks:  "  Hundreds  of  Christians  can 
testify  that  their  first  permanent,  serious  im- 
pressions were  obtained  at  the  river's  side.  It 
was  when  witnessing  the  baptism  of  an  only 
sister,  by  the  late  beloved  Professor  Knowles, 


76  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 

then  pastor  of  the  Second  Baptist  Church  in 
Boston,  that  my  own  attention  was  attracted 
to  the  subject  of  religion.  It  has  been  my 
happiness  to  baptize  almost  every  month  for 
the  past  four  years,  and  I  do  not  know  of  one 
instance  in  which  the  ordinance  has  not  been 
blessed,  to  the  conviction  and  conversion  of 
one  or  more  individuals.  No  doubt  each  time 
persons  have  been  seriously  affected,  and  per- 
haps converted  to  God,  whose  names  I  shall 
not  know  until  the  judgment  day." 

With  respect  to  the  inconvenience  of  im- 
mersion, it  is  more  in  imagination  than  reali- 
ty. Those  who  adhere  to  the  practice  find  no 
objection  to  it  on  this  account.  Even  if  it 
were  tenfold  more  difficult  to  be  performed,  it 
is  still  a  positive  institution,  and  ours  should 
be,  not  the  spirit  of  dictation,  but  obedience. 

It  is  objected  again,  by  some.,  that  it  could 
scarcely  be  the  design  of  Christ  to  make  the 
proper  performance  of  this  duty  to  consist  in 
immersion  alone,  as  in  many  cases  it  could  not 
be  administered  without  endangering  health, 
and  even  life.  I  answer,  there  are  many  du- 
ties which,  under  peculiar  circumstances,  the 
good  man  may  be  compelled  to  neglect.    Phy- 


RESTRICTED    C0MMUNI0X.  1? 

cal  impossibilities  God  has  never  required 
Although  attendance  upon  public  worship  is 
a  positive  obligation,  there  may  be  an  inabili- 
ty to  fulfil  it.  In  such  a  case  God  knows  the 
heart  and  accepts  the  disposition  to  obey,  al- 
though the  act  of  obedience  has  not  been  per- 
formed. So  with  respect  to  baptism.  But  the 
danger  contemplated  in  the  objection  does  not 
really  exist.  Even  persons  of  delicate  con- 
stitution and  feeble  health  may,  in  this  thing, 
safely  obey  their  Lord.  Among  the  hundreds 
baptized  by  the  writer,  during  his  whole  min- 
istry, he  has  not  been  aware  of  a  solitary  in- 
dividual by  whom  injury  has  been  sustained. 
This  is  true,  although  he  has  baptized  through- 
out the  coldest  winter,  on  almost  every  Lord's 
day,  and  in  many  instances  the  candidates 
have  been  debilitated  and  diseased.  This  will 
be  in  general  the  testimony  of  all  Baptist  min- 
isters. 

Another  objection  to  the  practice  of  the  pri- 
mitive churches  consists  in  the  perturbation 
of  mind  to  which  the  subject  of  baptism  is 
supposed  to  be  subjected.  I  state  the  language 
of  a  respectable   author:  "  Is  it  in  the  power 


78  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 

of  every  person  to  receive  baptism  by  immer- 
sion, without  having  his  thoughts  deranged, 
his  mind  agitated,  and  his  spirits  fluttered,  so 
as  to  render  him  incapable  of  those  sedate  and 
devotional  exercises  which  ought  always  to 
accompany  this  solemn  ordinance?"  The  same 
objection  might  be  urged  to  sprinkling.  To 
occupy  a  conspicuous  position  in  the  presence 
of  a  large  assembly,  would  be  well  calculated 
to  discompose  some  minds.  The  probability 
of  agitation,  and  incapability  of  sedate  and 
devotional  exercises,  would  not  be  greater  in 
the  one  case  than  the  other.  In  every  in- 
stance much  would  depend  upon  the  motive 
and  spirit  with  which  the  duty  was  performed. 
If  the  individual  was  exceedingly  desirous,  in 
the  Redeemer's  own  appointed  way,  to  confess 
him  before  men,  and  entertained  correct  views 
of  the  significancy  of  the  ordinance,  we  might 
rather  expect  that  his  mind  would  be  the  seat 
of  humble,  holy  joy.  This  act,  constituting 
"  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  towards 
God,"  would  be  likely  to  produce,  if  any  agi- 
tation, an  overflowing  of  grateful  emotion 
which  would  find  vent  in  the  utterance  of  the 


RESTRICTED    COMMUNION.  79 

Redeemer's  praise.  Such  is  ordinarily  the  in- 
fluence on  the  mind  of  the  believer,  in  perform- 
ing this  duty. 

To  close  this  part  of  the  argument,  it  may 
be  maintained  that  no  objection  can  be  urged 
of  sufficient  validity  to  overthrow  the  position 
that  immersion  was  not  only  the  practice  of 
the  primitive  Church,  but  is  essential  to  the  ordi- 
nance itself.  Without  this  act,  no  individual 
is  baptized.  We  have  before  proved  that  bap- 
tism is  an  indispensable  prerequisite  to  the 
participation  of  the  supper. 

III.  We  now  proceed  to  sustain  the  propo- 
sition that  it  would  be  wrong  so  depart  from  the 
primitive  practice  of  requiring  those  who 
come  to  the  Lord's  table,  first  to  be  baptized 
or  immersed.  We  are  under  solemn  obliga- 
tions to  "  keep  the  ordinances  as  delivered"  to 
us.  Restricted  communion  is  the  only  con- 
sistent course.  A  few  reasons  on  this  point 
will  be  presented. 

1.  The  practice  of  mixed  communion  is  in- 
expedient and  impracticable.  It  cannot  be 
carried  out  even  among  Pedo-baptist  churches 
themselves.  Suppose  a  Presbyterian  minister 
were   to   teach   publicly,  and  from   house  to 


80  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 

house,  that  infant  baptism  is  unscriptural,  and 
therefore  wrong,  and  after  suitable  admoni- 
tion, should  persist  in  the  practice,  Would  he 
not  be  excommunicated  ?  Were  he  then  to 
join  a  Baptist  church,  could  he  be  welcomed 
to  the  communion  of  the  church  from  which 
he  had  been  driven  ?  The  same  state  of  things 
might  be  supposed  in  reference  to  each  deno- 
mination of  Christians.  And  yet,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  principle  of  open  communion, 
such  excluded  persons,  bearing  a  good  moral 
character,  and  joining  another  church  could 
not  with  propriety  be  denied  access  to  the 
Lord's  table  as  spread  by  the  excinding  body. 
2.  The  will  of  Christ  in  this  arrangement  is 
authoritative.  As  he  has  required  in  the 
most  definite  manner  this  order  of  things, 
making  it  the  duty  of  believers  immediately 
upon  the  exercise  of  faith  to  put  him  on  in  im- 
mersion, and  as  the  supper  is  one  of  the  pri- 
vileges and  duties  connected  with  church  fel- 
lowship, no  man  has  a  right  to  suggest  a 
change.  Nor  has  any  synod,  or  association 
of  men,  though  composed  of  the  wisest  and 
best,  the  authority  to  alter  or  amend  the  laws 
of  the  kingdom.    It  is  the  Lord's  table.     He  has 


RESTRICTED    COMMUNION.  81 

prescribed  the  conditions  of  access  to  it.  One 
of  these  conditions  is  baptism,  nearly  the 
whole  Pedo-baptist  world  being  witness,  and 
we  have  incontrovertibly  proved  that  immer- 
sion only,  is  baptism.  If  it  were  our  table,  most 
gladly  would  we  receive  unbaptized  persons, 
but  as  the  head  of  the  Church  has  authorized 
no  change  in  the  original  terms  of  approach 
to  the  supper,  we  are  bound  to  adhere  to 
them. 

The  distinguished  Dr.  Griffin,  on  this  sub- 
ject remarks:  "  I  agree  with  the  advocates 
for  close  communion  in  two  points:  1.  That 
baptism  is  the  initiating  ordinance  which  in- 
troduces us  into  the  visible  church:  of  course, 
where  there  is  no  baptism  there  are  no  visible 
churches.  2.  That  we  ought  not  to  commune 
with  those  who  are  not  baptized,  and  of  course 
are  not  church  members,  even  if  we  regard  them 
as  Christians.  Should  a  pious  Quaker  so  far 
depart  from  his  principles,  as  to  wish  to  com- 
mune with  me  at  the  Lord's  table,  while  he 
yet  refused  to  be  baptized,  I  could  not  receive 
him;  because  there  is  such  relationship  estab- 
lished between  the  two  ordinances  that  1  have 
no  right  to  separate  them;  in  other  words  I  have 
8 


82  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 

110  right  to  send  the    sacred   elements   out  of 
the  church." 

3.  To  receive  at  the  Lord'  table,  or  into  the 
church,  unimmersed  persons,  is  tacitly  to  ad- 
mit that  sprinkling  and  pouring  are  right,  or 
that  the  initiatory  institution  may  be  omitted 
altogether.  To  allow  such  an  admissioD  would 
be  grossly  inconsistent.  Pedo-baptist  chur- 
ches contain  too  a  large  number  of  persons 
who  were  sprinkled  not  as  believers,  but  when 
they  were  unconscious  infants.  They  have 
therefore  never  professed  Christ  by  a  volun- 
tary obedience  to  any  act  which  they  might 
call  baptism.  Is  it  not  perceived  that  as  all 
agree  in  the  sentiment  that  baptism  is  the 
prerequisite  ordinance,  we  should  be  lending 
countenance  to  infant  sprinkling,  if  we  admit- 
ted such  to  the  Lord's  table  ?  We  would  be 
thereby  declaring  our  confidence  in  the  validi- 
ty of  their  baptism.  This  would  be  such  a 
glaring  departure  from  established  principle, 
that  Pedo-baptists  themselves  would  have 
reason  to  reproach  us.  Infant  sprinkling  is 
an  institution  as  pernicious  as  it  is  unscrip- 
tural.  It  is  the  foundation  of  all  national  re- 
ligious establishments  in  the  Christian  world. 


RESTRICTED    COMMUNION.  83 

We  feel  it  our  solemn  duty  to  protest  against 
it,  and  to  urge  the  exclusive  propriety  of  be- 
lievers' baptism.  This  is  done  in  declining  to 
commune  with  those  whom  we  deem  serious- 
ly delinquent  in  substituting  a  human  device 
for  the  significant  institution  authorized  by 
Jesus  Christ.  We  cannot  conscientiously 
lend  countenance  to  the  neglect  of  the  prere- 
quisite ordinance. 

4.  The  tendency  of  departing  from  the  pri- 
mitive practice  of  restricting  communion  to 
baptized  believers,  would  be  to  obliterate  the 
established  line  of  separation  between  the 
church  and  the  world.  This  line  is  immersion. 
Unquestionably  this  was  the  design  of  the 
institution.  As  we  have  proved  in  a  former 
part  of  this  essay,  it  was  the  formal  method  of 
confessing  Christ,  and  therefore  it  produced 
visible  separation  from  the  world.  It  was  the 
oath  of  fidelity  to  Christ's  kingdom.  With 
what  importance  then,  is  this  act  invested, 
and  how  essential  it  is,  that  this  form,  pre- 
scribed by  Christ  should  be  preserved.  But 
the  tendency  of  open  communion  is  to  destroy 
this  form.  Let  us  look  at  this  result.  If  it 
be  right  to  receive  unimmersed  persons  at  the 


84  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 

Lord's  table,  will  it  not  also  be  proper  to  re- 
ceive them  as  members  of  the  church  ?  It  is 
the  Lord's  church,  as  well  as  his  table,  and  if 
because  unbaptized  persons  who  may  be  con- 
sidered his  people,  shall  therefore  be  entitled 
to  the  one  privilege,  who  can  deny  them  the 
other?  Upon  this  principle  many  of  the  open 
communion  Baptist  churches  of  England  al- 
lowed mixed  membership,  receiving  Pedo- 
baptists  as  well  as  Baptists.  If  then  persons 
be  properly  received  into  the  church  by 
sprinkling,  instead  of  immersion,  cannot  all 
see,  that  soon  immersion  may,  and  will  be  dis- 
pensed with,  and  that  the  ordinance  of  Christ's 
own  appointment,  intended  as  the  line  of  de- 
markation  between  the  church  and  the  world 
must  become  obsolete.  Such  has  already 
been  the  effect  of  open  communion,  and  mixed 
membership.  The  church  at  Bedford,  over 
which  John  Bunyan  presided,  and  then  an 
open  communion  Baptist  church,  is  now  under 
the  pastoral  care  of  a  Pedo-baptist  minister. 
And  the  late  excellent  James  Hinton,  pastor 
of  an  open  communion  church  of  Oxford,  Eng- 
land, thus  observes  in  reference  to  his  own 
experience:  "  I  cannot  be  free  in  my  ministry 


RESTRICTED    COMMUNION.  85 

without  giving  offence:  the  congregation  is  of 
so  mingled  a  nature,  that  I  find  it  impossible 
to  escape  censure,  either  from  Baptists  or  Pe- 
do-baptists,  from  dissenters  or  friends  of  the 
establishment." 

The  effects  produced  by  open  communion  in 
these  churches  at  Oxford  and  Bedford,  were 
natural,  and  indeed  almost  necessary,  and  we 
might  expect  wherever  the  practice  prevailed, 
that  the  result  would  be  similar.  We  are 
bound  then  in  maintaining,  and  preserving  un- 
corrupted  the  "one  baptism"  of  primitive 
times,  to  restrict  the  communion  to  immersed 
persons  alone.  . 

5.  Open  communion  overlooks  the  fact,  that 
the  Lord's  supper  is  specifically  an  ordinance 
which  belongs  to  the  churches,  as  such.  It  is 
a  social  institution.  Jesus  broke  bread  with 
his  disciples.  The  church  at  Jerusalem,  con. 
tinued  together  in  breaking  of  bread,  and  in 
prayers.  The  Corinthian  churches  are  refer- 
red to  as  coming  together  in  one  place,  to  eat 
the  Lord's  supper.  It  is  not  an  ordinance  be- 
longing to  the  ministry,  which  they  are  to  ad" 
minister  to  individuals,  or  to  members  of  the 
church   in   their   individual   capacity.      It  is 


86 


RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 


made  the  duty  of  the  churches,  to  partake 
of  the  bread  and  the  wine,  together,  as 
churches,  in  commemoration  of  the  death  of 
their  Lord.  "The  bread  which  we  eat  is  it 
not  the  communion  of  the  body  of  Jesus 
Christ  (or  the^'o^  participation  of  the  body 
of  Jesus  Christ) — the  cup  which  we  drunk, 
is  it  not  the  communion  (or  joint  participa- 
tion) of  the  blood  of  Christ  ?" 

If  then  it  be  a  church  ordinance — an  ordi- 
nance in  which  a  church,  as  such,  are  to  cele- 
brate the  love  of  Christ  in  the  use  of  these 
affecting  emblems — then  the  question  arises, 
What  is  a  Christian  church,  and  who  are  au- 
thorized to  regard  themselves  as  members  of 
a  church,  or  what  are  the  conditions  of  admis- 
sion into  a  church  of  Christ  ?  According  to 
the  whole  argument  before  us,  none  but  bap- 
tized believers  can  properly  be  received  into  an 
organized  congregation  of  the  Lord,  and  be 
entitled  to  all  the  privileges  of  church  fellow- 
ship. 

6.  We  should  be  inflicting  an  injury  on  our 
brethren  who  neglect  the  ordinance  of  immer- 
sion, by  receiving  them  at  the  Lord's  table. 
We  regard  them  as  guilty  in  omitting  to  obey 


RESTRICTED    COMMUNION.  8T 

Christ  in  the  first  institution,  and  as  it  is  a 
prerequisite  to  the  supper  we  should  be  un- 
faithful to  them,  by  giving  encouragement  to 
their  neglect.  Love  to  them  dictates  the  course  we 
take.  "We  thus  remonstrate  with  them,  and 
urge  them  to  do  their  duty.  Every  time  an 
an  unbaptized  believer  witnesses  the  ordinance 
of  the  supper,  and  finds  himself  excluded,  he  is 
reminded  of  the  last  command  of  the  ascending 
Savior,  and  of  his  guilt  in  failing  to  comply 
with  it. 

In  closing  this  tract,  the  writer  may  be 
permitted  to  notice  some  of  the  objections 
which  are  brought  to  bear  against  the  practice 
of  close  communion.  It  is  true,  that  the  fore- 
going argument  includes  all  that  is  essential 
to  a  fair  and  full  view  of  the  subject,  still,  as 
certain  objections  are  so  frequently  urged  as 
to  become  current  and  popular,  justice  de- 
mands that  they  shall  be  directly  answered. 

Objection  1.  Baptism  is  a  non-essential,  and 
therefore  its  omission  constitutes  no  proper  bar  to 
communion.  A  penitent  trust  in  Jesus  does, 
indeed,  bring  the  soul  into  relations  of  amity 
with  God.  We  contend  that  men  are  justified 
before   God;    not   by   baptism   or   any   other 


88  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 

human  work,  but  by  the  righteousness  of 
Christ.  But  by  what  authority  is  baptism,  or 
any  requirement  of  the  Gospel,  deemed  a  non- 
essential ?  Baptism  is  a  command  of  the 
ascending  Redeemer,  and  given  under  circum- 
stances the  most  solemn  and  affecting.  Who 
shall  dare  to  denominate  it  unessential  ?  If 
the  Son  of  God  utters  his  word,  every  disciple 
should  listen  and  obey.  Baptism  is  essential 
to  the  proper  performance  of  his  will,  and,  as 
we  have  already  shown,  to  a  proper  partici- 
pation of  all  the  privileges  of  his  house.  No 
properly  organised  church  can  admit  to  the 
table  of  the  Lord  any  person  who  has  neglected 
the  prerequisite  ordinance  of  baptism. 

Objection  2.  The  practice  of  restricted  commu- 
nion indicates  a  spirit  of  bigotry  inconsistent  with 
fervid,  scriptural  piety.  This  is  a  serious  charge. 
It  is  sometimes  alleged  by  prominent  men 
among  our  Pedo-baptist  brethren.  But  is  it 
true  ?  If  our  churches  indulge  in  this  temper, 
they  are  fearfully  guilty.  On  their  behalf, 
however,  we  must  be  permitted  to  repel  the 
allegation.  Far  be  it  from  us  to  cherish  an 
uncharitable  disposition.  We  love  all  who 
love  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  we  believe 


KESTRICTED    COMMUNION.  89 

there  are  many  who,  through  strong  educa- 
tional influences,  have  been  blind  to  their  duty 
in  regard  to  baptism.  Yes;  there  are  thou- 
sands who,  as  soon  as  they  perceive  their 
guilt  in  this  particular,  will  repent  of  it,  and 
sooner  lose  their  right  arm  than  fail  to  follow 
Christ  in  baptism.  It  is  not  because  we  have 
no  love  to  them,  but  because  our  love  to  Christ 
is  stronger.  We  do  indeed  love  them.  It  is 
because  we  love  them  that  we  dare  to  be  faith- 
ful by  insisting  that  they  are  unbaptised,  and 
therefore  not  properly  prepared  to  participate 
in  the  privileges  of  the  Lord's  table.  We  hope 
in  this  way  to  do  them  good,  while  we  glorify 
our  Divine  Redeemer  and  Lawgiver  by  keep- 
ing the  ordinances  as  delivered  to  us. 

I  must  be  permitted  also  to  say  that  this  is 
in  some  respects  a  painful  duty  we  are  re- 
quired to  perform.  To  break  away  from  those 
we  love,  and  to  incur  their  odium,  is  far  from 
being  pleasant.  But  we  are  held  in  this  thing 
by  allegiance  to  the  King  in  Zion.  Our  Pedo- 
baptist  brethren  mistake  us  when  they  sup- 
pose that  we  indulge  a  proud,  pharisaic,  in- 
tolerant spirit,  in  declining  to  commune  with 
them.      We  are  governed  not  by  a  rule  formed  by 


90  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 

our  churches,  hut  by  a  rule  adopted  and  carried 
out  in  primitive  times.  In  accordance  with  the 
preceding  argument,  we  are  warranted  in  the 
conclusion  that  no  one  refusing  to  he  immersed, 
in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  would  have  been 
received  into  a  Christian  Church  or  at  the 
Lord's  table.  A  conscientious  regard  to  the 
will  of  Christ  constrains  us,  even  in  the  midst 
of  reproach,  to  adhere  to  this  rule.  We  re- 
quire those  who  come  to  the  Lord's  table,  first 
to  be  baptized,  and  regard  immersion  only  as 
valid  baptism. 

Dismissing  this  point,  it  will  be  seen  that 
the  charge  of  intolerance  on  the  part  of  Bap- 
tists, towards  other  denominations,  is  without 
foundation.  That  we  have  bigots  among  us 
is  not  denied,  but  what  church  has  them  not? 
Who  that  looks  at  the  state  of  things  in  the 
religious  world  does  not  perceive  that  there  is 
as  much  friendly  regard  among  the  Baptists 
for  Pedo-baptists,  as  there  is  among  different 
persuasions  of  Pedo-baptists  towards  each 
other  ?  Do  Episcopalians  sit  down  at  the 
Lord's  table  with  Presbyterian  churches?  Are 
Methodist  and  Presbyterian  churches  on  closer 
terms  of  intimacy  than  are  Presbyterians  and 


RESTRICTED    COMMUNION.  91 

Baptists  ?  I  think  not.  We  would  have  all, 
then,  to  beware  of  a  deception  to  which  the 
mind  may  become  subject  by  this  charge  of 
bigotry.  So  far  as  we  can,  without  a  sacrifice 
of  principle,  unite  with  those  of  other  denomi- 
nations in  doing  good,  we  shall  feel  happy  in 
the  union;  but  union  at  the  expense  of  princi- 
ple, by  the  sacrifice  of  a  divinely  appointed 
institution,  we  are  not  willing  to  purchase. 

Objection  3.  The  scriptures  inculcate  forbear- 
ance in  those  various  differences  of  opinion  which 
may  exist  in  the  church  of  Christ.  This  is  true. 
But  the  scriptures  nowhere  teach  that,  in  re- 
spect to  positive  institutions,  neglect  or  abuse 
is  to  be  allowed.  The  various  injunctions  of 
the  New  Testament  on  the  subject  of  forbear- 
ance were  addressed,  as  we  have  proved,  to 
those  who  acknowledged  only  one  Lord,  one 
faith,  one  baptism.  The  churches  then  were 
composed  of  immersed  believers,  and  they,  in 
all  questions  of  expediency,  not  affecting  vital 
truth  or  the  ordinances  as  delivered  to  the 
saints,  were  exhorted  not  to  judge  another 
man's  servant,  but  to  bear  each  other's  infirmi- 
ties. 

Objection  4.   Close  communion  tends  to  keep  up 


92  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 

the  tcall  of  separation  which  has  been  reared  between 
the  disciples  of  Christ.  We  have  already  stated 
that  Pedo-baptists  are  not  more  united  among 
themselves  than  the  Baptist  churches  are  with 
them.  So  far  as  this  question  is  concerned, 
there  are  but  two  great  divisions,  Baptists 
and  Pedo-baptists.  Would  the  abandonment 
of  our  principles  as  Baptists  serve  to  break 
down  the  separating  wall,  and  bring  us  into 
close  affiliation  with  our  brethren  who  practice 
sprinkling  and  pouring  ?  Let  the  history  of 
open  communion  churches  in  Great  Britain 
testify.  They  are  as  distinct  and  unassociated 
as  our  churches  in  this  country. 

But  we  call  attention  to  the  fact,  that  the 
wall  of  separation  can  only  be  broken  down 
by  Pedo-baptists  themselves.  They  are  re- 
sponsible for  its  continuance.  All  of  them 
admit  that  ours  is  valid  baptism,  many  of 
them  insist  that  it  was  the  only  baptism  to 
which  believers  in  primitive  times  yielded. 
We  regard  it  as  the  only  baptism.  They  can 
consistently  be  immersed,  we  cannot  yield 
that  sprinkling  is  right.  Now,  for  the  sake 
of  union,  let  our  brethren  do  that  which  they 
can  conscientiously  do,  and  not  require  us  to 


RESTRICTED    COMMUNION.  93 

violate  our  consciences.  We  do  not  ask  them 
to  call  themselves  Baptists.  We  cling  not 
tenaciously  to  the  name.  But  we  do  ask  them 
in  the  name  of  our  glorified  Saviour  and  King 
to  perform  the  solemn  duty,  which  they  can 
do  without  any  sacrifice  of  conscience,  and 
thus  tear  down  the  wall  which  has  so  long 
sundered  us. 

Objection  5.  The  sincerity  of  Pedo-baptists  is 
impugned  by  the  practice  of  restricted  communion. 
We  have  never  doubted  the  sincerity  of  those 
with  whom  we  hesitate  to  commune  at  the 
Lord's  table.  But  it  is  manifest  that  sincerity 
is  no  criterion  by  which  to  determine  what  is 
right.  It  is  as  easy  to  be  sincere  in  pursuing 
a  wrong  as  a  right  course.  The  word  of  God 
is  the  only  authorised  rule  of  conduct.  Be- 
sides, in  performing  our  duty  we  are  to  be 
governed  by  our  own  conscientious  views  of 
God's  word,  and  not  by  the  consciences  of 
others.  Let  the  New  Testament  be  read,  care- 
fully, and  with  an  obedient  heart,  in  reference 
to  baptism,  and  we  are  willing  to  abide  the 
result.  It  is  not  that  Pedo-baptists  are  insin- 
cere, but,  if  the  statements  of  thousands  who 
have  changed  their  views  on  this  subject  are 
9 


94  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 

to  be  regarded,  the  whole  question  of  duty  in 
regard  to  the  ordinances  is  not  sufficiently  ex- 
amined by  the  simple  light  of  inspiration. 

Objection  6.  Close  communion  is  a  reflection  on 
all  JPedo-baptist  communities,  tacitly  representing 
t/iem  as  not  being  churches  of  Jesus  Christ.  A 
church  of  Christ  is  composed  of  baptized  be- 
lievers. Pedo-baptist  churches,  in  so  far  as 
they  depart  from  this  platform  of  primitive 
practice,  are  irregular  in  their  organization. 
While  we  recognise  them  as  christians,  and 
honor  them  as  worthy  on  many  accounts  of 
imitation,  we  are  compelled  to  regard  them 
as  seriously  defective  in  their  method  of  con- 
stituting the  congregations  of  the  saints. 
They  keep  not  the  ordinances  as  delivered  by 
the  apostles. 

Objection  7.  It  is  the  "  table  of  the  Lord," 
and  the  "  Lord's  supper,"  and  therefore  none  of 
the  Lord's  people  should  be  excluded  from  the  pri- 
vilege of  communion.  This  objection  has  already 
been  considered.  Because  it  is  the  Lord's  ta- 
ble, we  are  careful  to  regard  his  own  arrange- 
ment in  approaching  it.  As  he  has  prescribed 
the  prerequisites,  we  dare  not  alter  or  amend 
them.     It  will  be  seen  too,  that  this  argument, 


RESTRICTED    COMMUNION.  95 

if  it  proves  anything,  proves  too  much.  All 
young  converts  might  be  received  at  the 
Lord's  table  at  once,  without  reference  to  bap- 
tism, because  they  are  the  Lord's  people,  and 
thus  the  ordinance  which,  in  some  way,  all  re- 
gard as  preliminary  and  proper,  might  become 
an  obsolete  law. 

Objection  8.  By  restricting  communion  to  im- 
mersed believers,  it  will  be  often  necessary  to  sepa- 
rate at  the  Lord's  table  the  people  of  God,  who  are 
related  by  the  strongest  earthly  lies.  We  are  aware 
that  this  is  with  many  a  potent  objection.  That 
the  husband  and  wife,  both  professing  attach- 
ment to  Christ,  should  not  be  allowed  to  unite 
at  the  Lord's  supper,  because  one  or  the  other 
is  not  baptized,  constitutes  with  many  a  rea- 
son for  the  practice  of  open  communion.  This, 
however,  is  an  appeal  to  carnal  feeling,  un- 
warranted by  reason  and  the  Word  of  God. 
If  it  will  hold  good  with  respect  to  baptism, 
it  will  also  with  respect  to  any  other  duty. 
When  principle  is  involved,  we  are  to  know 
no  man  after  the  flesh.  "  If  any  man  come  to 
me,  and  hate  not  his  father  and  mother,  and 
wife  and  children,  and  brethren  and  sisters, 
yea,  and  his  own  life  also,  he  cannot  be  my 


96  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 

disciple."  This  solemn  asseveration  of  Jesus 
Christ  requires  a  sacrifice  of  expediency,  and 
even  the  natural  relations  of  life,  when  they 
come  in  collision  with  the  laws  of  his  kingdom. 
Objection  9.  All  Christians  will  commune  in 
heaven,  and  why  should  they  be  denied  the  privi- 
lege on  earth?  In  answering  this  objection,  it 
will  be  proper  to  notice  the  fact,  that  those 
who  make  it,  are  inconsistent  with  themselves. 
Do  they  not  refuse  to  commune  with  many  in 
this  world,  who  are  acknowledged  as  proper 
subjects  of  the  heavenly  glory.  Do  Presbyte- 
rians of  the  Old  School  habitually  and  regu- 
larly sit  down  at  the  table  which  is  spread  by 
those  who  have  seceded  from  them?  Are  not 
the  members  of  the  Reformed  Methodist 
church  regarded  by  the  Episcopal  Methodists 
as  prepared  for  heaven,  but  do  they  commune 
together  at  the  Lord's  table  on  earth?  The 
Episcopalians  will  not  sit  down  at  the  table 
of  the  Presbyterian  or  Methodist  churches, 
because  they  deem  their  pastors  and  preachers 
unauthorized  to  administer  the  ordinances; 
and  yet  they  recognize  them  as  Christians, 
and  entitled  to  the  privileges  of  the  upper 
world.  But  considering  this  objection  farther, 


RESTRICTED    COMMUNION.  97 

we  may  ask,  does  it  follow  because  all  God's 
people,  in  the  glorified  state,  shall  be  perfect- 
ly pure  and  united;  that  upon  earth,  regard- 
less of  principle,  and  the  express  injunctions 
of  the  New  Testament,  they  are  to  come  to- 
gether at  the  Lord's  table?  We  admit  that  all 
Christians,  so  far  as  fundamental  truth  and 
the  ordinances  are  concerned,  ought  to  be  per- 
fectly joined  together  on  earth,  and  the  period 
is  anticipated  when  this  blessed  union  will 
take  place.  We  cannot  believe,  however,  that 
under  any  circumstances  it  will  be  proper  to 
violate  the  rule  which  Christ  has  adopted,  by 
which  all  who  enter  his  kingdom  on  earth 
must  first  put  him  on,  being  buried  with  him 
in  baptism.  To  observe  the  laws  of  his  spirit- 
ual kingdom  in  this  world,  should  constitute 
the  earnest  endeavor  of  all  his  people,  leaving 
all  questions  in  reference  to  the  upper  world, 
to  be  made  known  to  them  when  they  shall  be 
called  away  by  death. 

Other  objections  might  be  introduced,  but 
they  are  of  minor  consequence,  and,  indeed, 
are  comprehended  in  those  already  considered. 
It  remains  for  us  to  address  a  few  words  to 
two  classes  of  persons. 


98  RESTRICTED    COMMUNION. 

1.  To  those  who  have  neglected  to  obey 
Christ  in  the  solemn  and  significant  ordi- 
nance of  immersion,  we  beg  leave  respect- 
fully and  affectionately,  to  appeal.  It  be- 
comes your  duty  to  examine  this  subject. 
With  you,  surely,  it  will  not  be  an  unim- 
portant thing  to  ascertain  the  will  of  your 
Lord.  Has  he  not  redeemed  you  by  his  pre- 
cious blood?  Is  he  not  now  at  the  right  hand 
of  God,  ever  living,  to  make  intercession  for 
you?  Do  you  not  acknowledge  him  as  your 
sovereign?  You  cannot  regard  any  require- 
ment he  makes,  as  unessential.  We  ask  you 
then,  with  simple  reference  to  his  will  and 
gloiy,  to  examine  the  New  Testament  for  the 
purpose  of  ascertaining  whether  you  are  in- 
deed negligent  and  disobedient.  Endeavor  to 
forget  all  prepossessions  and  earthly  alliances, 
and. with  unbiased  heart,  notice  every  passage 
which  relates  to  baptism,  exercising  your  own 
common  sense,  as  to  its  import.  This  is  your 
imperious  dut}7.  Your  ignorance  and  sinceri- 
ty will  be  no  mitigation  of  your  sin  in  disre- 
garding the  injunction  of  Christ.  It  becomes 
important  that  you  look  into  the  question; 
and  if  you  find  that  you  have  failed  to   follow 


RESTRICTED    COMMUNION.  99 

Christ,  by  being  buried  with  him  in  baptism, 
let  nothing"  prevent  the  performance  of  your 
duty.  The  sacrifice  may  be  great.  You  may 
find  it  necessary  to  break  away  from  early 
formed  associations,  and  from  cherished  kin- 
dreds and  friends.  Remember  the  words  of 
your  Redeemer:  "Who  so  loveth  father  or 
mother  more  than  me,  is  not  worthy  of  me." 

2.  We  add  a  line  or  two  to  those  who,  as 
Baptists,  claim  to  adhere  tenaciously  to  pri- 
mitive institutions.  Let  nothing  be  done 
through  strife  or  vain  glory.  To  indulge  in 
bigotry  or  unkindness  towards  those  whom  we 
regard  as  disobedient  to  the  law  of  baptism,  is 
inconsistent  and  wrong.  Nothing  can  justify 
such  a  course.  We  ought  earnestly  to  con- 
tend for  the  restoration  of  the  ordinance  as  de- 
livered by  Christ,  but  let  us  always  speak  the 
truth  in  love;  not  to  build  up  a  denomina- 
tional interest,  but  to  honor  Christ,  and  sub- 
serve the  interests  of  his  kingdom.  All  his 
precepts  let  us  gladly  fulfill,  endeavoring,  in 
the  family,  the  world,  and  the  church,  to  glo- 
rify God. 


• 


